### Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Framework Document for
Commercial Clothes Washers

Docket # EERE

- 2012

- BT

- STD

- 0020

U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Building Technologies Program

August 13 , 2012ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 6

1.1 The Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards Program

.............................. 7
1.2 Previous Commercial Clothes Washer Standards Rulemaking

................................ ... 9
1.3 Test Procedures

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 11
1.4 General Rulemaking Process and Stakeholder Participation

................................ ..... 13
1.4.1 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR)

................................ ............................... 15
1.4.2 Final Rule

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 16
2. OVERVIEW OF ANALYSES FOR RULEMA KING

................................ ............. 17

3. MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

................................ .................. 18

3.1 Market Assessment

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 18
3.2 Product Classes

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 18
3.3 Technology Assessment

................................ ................................ ............................ 19
4. SCREENING ANALYSIS

................................ ................................ ........................ 20

5. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

................................ ................................ ................... 21

5.1 Baseline Models

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 21
5.2 Higher Efficiency Levels

................................ ................................ ........................... 22
5.3 Approach for Deter mining the Cost

- Efficiency Relationship

................................ ... 23
5.4 Proprietary Designs

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 24
5.5 Impacts on Consumer Utility

................................ ................................ ..................... 25
6. ENERGY AND WATER USE ANALYSIS

................................ ............................. 25

7. MARKUPS ANALYSIS

................................ ................................ ........................... 26

8. LIFE

- CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSES

.............................. 28

8.1 Overview

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 28
8.2 Energy, Water, and Wastewater Prices

................................ ................................ ...... 30
8.3 Maintenance, Repair, and Installation Costs

................................ ............................. 30
8.4 Equipment Lifetimes

................................ ................................ ................................ . 31
8.5 Customer Discount Rates

................................ ................................ .......................... 31
8.6 Energy Efficiency in the Base Case

................................ ................................ ........... 32
8.7 Rebuttable Presumption Analysis

................................ ................................ .............. 32
9. SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS

................................ ................................ ........................ 33

9.1 Base

- Case Forecast

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 33
9.2 Impacts of Standards on Equipment Shipments

................................ ........................ 34
10. NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

................................ ................................ .......... 34

10.1 Projected Efficiency Trends

................................ ................................ ...................... 35
10.2 National Energy Savings

................................ ................................ ........................... 36
10.3 Net Present Value

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 36
11. CONSUMER SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

................................ ................................ .. 37

12. MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS

................................ ............................. 37iii

12.1 Sources of Infor mation for the Manufacturer Impact Analysis

................................ . 38
12.2 Industry Cash Flow and Direct Employment Analyses

................................ ............. 38
12.3 Manufacturer Subgroup Analysis

................................ ................................ .............. 38
12.4 Competitive Impacts Assessment

................................ ................................ .............. 39
12.5 Cumulative Regulatory Burden

................................ ................................ ................. 39
13. UTILITY IMPACT ANALYSIS

................................ ................................ ............... 40

14. EMPLOYMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS

................................ ................................ ... 40

15. EMISSIONS ANALYSIS

................................ ................................ ......................... 41

15.1 Carbon Dioxide

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 42
15.2 Sulfur Dioxide

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 42
15.3 Nitrogen Oxides

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 43
15.4 Mercury

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 43
15.5 Particulate Matter

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 43
16. MONETIZING CARBON DIOXIDE AND OTHER EMISSIONS

REDUCTIONS

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 44

17. REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS

................................ ................................ ... 45

APPENDIX A

– SUMMARY OF ITEMS FOR COMMENT FROM INTERESTED

PARTIES

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 47

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Summary of Relevant Regulatory and Legislative Actions for Commercial Clothes
Washers

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 8 Table 1.2. Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Clothes Washers, Established by
EPACT 2005

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 9 Table 1.3. Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Clothes Washers, Effective January 8, 2013

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 11 Table 1.4 EPCA Requirements and Corresponding DOE Analyses

................................ ............. 14 Table 1.5 Rulemaking Schedule

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 15 Table 3.1 Technology Options for Commercial Clothes Washers

................................ ............... 20 Table 5.1 Efficiency Levels Under Consideration for Front

- Loadin g Commercial Clothes Washer Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 22

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 7.1 Distribution Channel for Commercial Clothes Washers

................................ ............. 27iv LIST OF ACRONYMS

AEO Annual Energy Outlook
AHAM Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
ANOPR advance notice of proposed rulemaking
AWWA American Water Works Association
BLS Bureau of Labor and Statistics
BT Building Technologies Program
CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule
CCW Commercial Clothes Washer
CEE Consortium for Energy Efficiency
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CLA Coin Laundry Associati on CO 2 carbon dioxide
D.C. District of Columbia
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
DOJ U.S. Department of Justice
EF energy factor
EGU electric generating units
EIA Energy Information Administration
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPACT Energy Policy Act of 2005
EPCA Energy Policy and Conservation Act
FFC full

- fuel

- cycle
FR Federal Register
GHG greenhouse gas emissions
GREET Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation Hg Mercury
I

- O Input

- Output
IMEF integrated modified energy factor
ImSET Impact of Sector Energy Technologies
IWF integrated water factor
kWh kilowatt

- hour
LCC life

- cycle cost
LVM low

- volume manufacturer
MEF modified energy factor
MIA manufacturer impact analysis
MLA Multi

- Housing Laundry Association
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NECPA National Energy Conservation Policy Act of 1978
NEMS National Energy Modeling System
NES national energy savings
NESHAP national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutan ts NIA national impact analysis
NOPR notice of proposed rulemaking
NO
x nitrogen oxidesv

NPV net present value
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PBP payback period
PM particulate matter
PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
R&D research and development
RCW residential clothes washer
RMC remaining moisture content
SCC social cost of carbon
SEC Securities and Exchange Commission
SG&A selling, general, and administrative costs
SNOPR supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
SO 2 sulfur dioxide
SWEF shipment

- weighted efficiency
TSD technical support document
TSL trial standard level
U.S. United States
U.S.C. United States Code
WF water factor6 

### Rulemaking Framework Document for
Commercial Clothes Washers

1. INTRODUCTION

T his framework document describe s the procedural and analytical approaches the U.S. Department of Energy (the Department

, or DOE) anticipates using to evaluate amending the

energy c onservation standards for commercial clothes washers (CCW)

. It also informs interested parties of the standards rulemaking process

, encourages input from these parties during the rulemaking

, and serves as the starting point for developing standards. The f ramework document is not a definitive statement about any issue that DOE may determine in the rulemaking.

The DOE Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards Program, within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Building Technologies Program , develops and promulgates test procedures and energy conservation standards for consumer appliances and commercial equipment. The process for developing standards involves analysis, public notice,
and the solicitation of comment from interested par ties. Such parties include manufacturers, consumers, energy conservation and environmental advocates, State and Federal agencies, and any other groups or individuals with an interest in these standards and test procedures.

Section 1 of this framework document provides an overview of the rulemaking process. Sections
2 through 17 describe the analyses D OE intends to conduct to fulfill the statutory requirements for this standards rulemaking. DOE will conduct analyses to determine whether amended energy conservation standards are technologically feasible and economically justified and would result in sign ificant conservation of energy.

Information regarding this rulemaking will be maintained on the DOE website at : http://www1.eere.energy.gov/building s/appliance_standards/commercial/clothes_washers.html

. In addition, materials submitted for public record will be available in the docket for this rulemaking, which is accessible through the regulations.gov website by searching for Docket No.
EERE

- 2012

- BT

- STD

- 0020

.

Throughout this document, comment boxes such as this one highlight particular issues on which DOE seeks comment and requests feedback from interested parties. Such requests for comment are numbered according to the section in wh ich they appear. Although the comment boxes highlight particular issues that DOE has identified upfront, DOE invites comment from interested parties on all aspects of the material presented in this document

.7

1.1 The Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards Program

The E nergy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) established an energy conservation program for consumer products . (42 U.S.C. 6291

– 6309) The National Energy Conservation Policy Act of 1978 (NECPA) amended EPCA to add Part C of Title III, which established an energy conservation program for certain industrial equipment

. (42 U.S.C. 6311

- 6317) (Part C

was re

- designated as Part A

- 1 on codificat ion in the U.S. Code, for editorial reasons )

. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005), P.L. 109

- 58, further amended EPCA to expand DOE’s energy conservation program to include commercial clothes washers and other commercial equipment under Part C

.

Table 1

. 1 provides a summary of prior key regulatory and legislative actions regarding energy conservation standards for commercial clothes washers, including relevant changes to the
residential clothes washer test procedure, which is used by commercial clothes washers , as described further in Section 1.3

.8

Table 1

. 1 Summary of R elevant R egulatory and L egislative A ctions for C ommercial
C lothes W ashers

Name Action Citation and Date Summary of Action

LEGISLATION

EPCA Legislation Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975, Pub. L. 94

- 163 Established DOE authority to develop energy conservation standards and test procedures for consumer products.

NECPA Legislation National Energy Conservation Policy Act of 1978, Pub. L.
95

- 619 A mended EPCA to establish an energy

conservation program for certain industrial equipment

.

EPACT 2005 Legislation Energy Policy Act of
2005 , Pub. L. 1 09

- 58 E xpanded DOE’s energy conservation program to include commercial clothes
washers ; established initial energy and
water conservation standards for
commercial clothes washers

. ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS

March 2006
Framework
D ocument Framework

D ocument 71 FR 15059

(March 27, 2006) Developed to consider amended energy
conservation standards.

November 2007
ANOPR Advanced Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking 72 FR 64432

(November 17, 2007) Solicited comment on amended energy
and water conservation standards for a single product class of commercial
clothes washers.

October 2008 NOPR Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking 73 FR 62034

(October 17, 2008) Proposed adoption of two separate energy and water conservation standards for top

- loading and front

- loading
commercial clothes washers.

November 2009
SNOPR Supplemental

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 74 FR 57738

(November 9, 2009) Updated proposed energy conservation
standards for top

- loading and front

loading commercial clothes washers.

January 2010 Final
R ule Final R ule 75 FR 1122 (January 8, 2010) Amended energy conservation standards
for top

- loading and front

- loading
commercial clothes washers manufactured on or after January 8,
2013.
August 2012
Framework
Document Framework

Document 77 FR 48108

(August 13, 2012) Developed to consider amend ed energy
conservation standards.

TEST PROCEDURES

August 1997 Final
Rule Final Rule 62 FR 45484 (August 27, 1997) Established current test procedure at appendix J1

.

March 2012 Final
Rule Final Rule 77 FR 13888 ( March 7, 2012 ) Established new test procedure at appendix J2; amended certain provisions in appendix J1; removed obsolete appendix J. Effective April 6, 2012.9

EPACT 2005 defined c ommercial clothes washers as follows:

The term “commercial clothes washer” means a soft

- mount front

- loading or soft

- mount top

- loading clothes washer that

— (A) has a clothes container compartment that

— (i) for horizontal

- axis clothes washers

, is not more than 3.5 cubic feet ; and (ii) for ver tical

- axis clothes washers , is not more than 4.0 cubic feet ; and (B) is designed for use in

— (i) appli cations in which the occupants of more than one household will be using the clothes washer, such as multi

- family housing common areas and coin
laundries ; or (ii) ot her commercial applications. ( 42 U.S.C. 6311(21) )

EPACT 200 5 established the first energy conservation standards for commercial clothes washers

, shown in Table 1

. 2

.

Table 1

. 2 . Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Clothes Washers, Established by EPACT 2005

Metric Standard

Modified Energy Factor (MEF)

, ft 3 /kwh/cycle 1.26 (minimum)

Water Factor (WF)

, gal/cycle/ft 3 9.5 (maximum)

EPACT 2005 further directed DOE to conduct two rulemaking cycles to determin e whether to
amend these standards : the first final rule was required by January 1, 2010, and the second final
rule is required by January 1, 2015. ( 42 U.S.C. 6313 (e)) The January 2010 Final R ule (see
section 1.2 for discussion) and the current rulemaking fulfill th is requirement

.

EPA C T 2005 also mandated that the test procedures for commercial clothes washers be the same as the test procedures established by DOE for residential clothes washers. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(8)) Further discussion of the test proced ure is provided in section 1.3 of this framework document.

1.2 Previous Commercial Clothes Washer Standards Rulemaking

DOE published a framework document for the first required rulemaking cycle on March 27,
2006

. ( 71 FR 15059 ) DOE received comments from interested parties regarding the proposed analy tical approach, including specific comments regarding product classes, market characterization, technology assessments, and life cycle costs.

On November 17, 2007, DOE published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking ( “ November 2007 ANOPR ” ), in which DOE:10

 Considered establishing a single product class for CCWs ;

 D escribed in greater detail the analytical framework, models, and tools to be used throughout the rulemaking ;

 Presented preliminary results of the engineering analysis, life cycle cost (LCC) analysis, payback period (PBP) analysis, national energy savings (NES) estimates, and national impact analysis (NIA) ; and

 Presented candidate energy conservation standard levels. ( 72 FR 64432 )

DOE received comments from interested parties on all aspects of the topics covered in the
November 2007 ANOPR.

After further analysis, DOE issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on October 17, 2008 ( “ October 2008 NOPR ” ) . ( 73 FR 62034 ) In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE stated that the method of loading clothes is a feature within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4), which prohibits DOE from adopting a standard that would result in the unavailability of product features substantially the same as th ose generally available in the United States at the time the standard is adopted. B ecause DOE’s analysis showed that s tandards for a single product class
based on the criteria set forth in EPCA would effectively eliminate top

- loading CCWs from the
market

, DOE proposed establish ing and setting separate energy and water conservation standards
for two classes of CCW s based upon the axis of loading ( i.e. , top

- loading and front

- loading).

D OE received additional comments from interested parties on all aspects of the proposals presented in the October 2008 NOPR

. In particular, manufacturers e xpressed concern regarding
the maximum technologically feasible (max

- tech) efficiency level identified by DOE for top

loading CCWs

. The manufacturer of the max

- tech top

- load ing clothes washer stated that a transposition error had resulted in the incorrect reporting of th e unit’s modified energy factor

. DOE conducted independent laboratory testing of the unit in question, which verified that the MEF rating had been reported in correctly. Based on this information, DOE published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking on November 9, 2009 ( “ November 2009 SNOPR ” )

, which revised the max

- tech efficiency level downward for top

- loading CCW s. ( 74 FR 57738 ) DOE also revised its engineering and economic analyses in the November 2009 SNOPR accordingly.

After receiving and evaluating comments on the November 2009 SNOPR, DOE published a final
rule on January 8, 2010 ( “ January 2010 final rule ” )

, which establish ed new energy and water
conservation standards for top

- loading and front

- loading CCWs , shown in Table 1

. 3

. ( 75 FR
1122 ) The revised standards apply to CCWs manufactured on or after January 8, 2013.11

Table 1

. 3 . Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Clothes Washers, Effective January 8, 2013

Product Class Modified Energy
Factor ft 3 /kwh/cycle (minimum) Water Factor gal/cycle/ft

3 (maximum)

Top

- Loading 1.60 8.5

Front

- Loading 2.00 5.5

1.3 Test Procedures

EP CA requires that CCWs use the same test procedures as residential clothes washers. ( 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(8))

On March 7, 2012

, DOE published a final rule amend ing its test procedures for residential
clothes washers ( “ March 2012 final rule ” ). ( 77 FR 13888 ) The March 2012 final rule amended certain provisions in the test procedure at 10 CFR 430, Subpart B, Appendix J1 and also established a new test procedure at Appendix J2. The amendments to Appendix J1 became effective April 6, 2012. Manufacturers of residential clothes washers will be required to use Appendix J2 to demonstrate compliance with standards beginning March 7, 2015.

Because CCWs are required by EPCA to use the same test procedures as residential clothes washers, manufacturers of CCWs will also be required to use Appendix J2 to demonstrate compliance with the MEF/WF standards shown in Table 1

. 3 beginning Marc h 7, 2015.

Among other changes, t he new Appendix J2 test procedure:

 M odifies the definition of the energy test cycle to improve clarity, repeata bility , and reproducib ility

.

 Establishes a new energy efficiency metric, integrated modified energy factor (IME F), which incorporates energy consumption in standby and off modes. (Because the current
standards for CCW s do not include standby and off mode, CCW manufacturers will not be required to measure IMEF, as described below.)

 Establishes a new water efficienc y metric, integrated water factor (IWF), which provides a more representative measure of water consumption by incorporating water consumption from all the temperature cycles included as part of the energy test cycle. The current WF
metric is based on the w ater consumption of only the cold/cold wash/rinse temperature cycle.

 Modifies the capacity measurement method to improve clarity, repeatability, and reproducibility, and to more appropriately represent the usable volume of the clothes washer during operati on.

 Modifies the dryer energy calculation to maintain consistency with the load size usage factors used throughout the test procedure.12

Appendix J2 retains provisions for calculating MEF and WF; however, because of certain changes to the active mode provisions described above , MEF and WF calculated using Appendix
J2 will differ from MEF and WF calculated for the same clothes washer using the current test procedure at Appendix J1

.

DOE recognizes that the January 8, 2013 stan dard levels shown in Table 1

. 3 are based on
MEF/WF as measured using Appendix J1

. Until such time as DOE establishes amended energy and water conservation standards for commercial clothes washers, DOE is considering developing correct ion factors that would be used to determine compliance with the MEF/WF standards effective January 8, 2013 that would apply beginning March 7, 2015, at which time manufacturers will be required to use the Appendix J2 test procedure

. To develop proposed

cor rection factors , DOE would acquire a representative sample of CCWs that minimally comply with the 2013 standard levels and test them using the new Appendix J2 test procedure. The differences in the measured MEF/WF values between Appendix J1 and Appendix J2 w ould be used to develop proposed correction factors , on which DOE would seek comment prior to adopting any final correction factors

.

Item 1

- 1 DOE invites comment on develop ing correction factors for translating Appendix J1 MEF/WF values into Appendix J2 MEF/WF values that would apply beginning March 7, 2015, at which time manufacturers will be required to use the Appendix J2 test procedure

. DOE also welcomes any dat a on the ap propriate correction factors.

For this rulemaking, DOE is considering whether to establish amended energy efficiency
standards for CCW s based on the IMEF metric, which would incorporate standby and off mode

power. DOE recognizes that some CCWs utilize di splay technologies and networking features that may consume significantly more standby mode power than traditional coin

- operated CCWs

, and that these technologies provide unique functionality within the markets they serve. In addition, the standby and off mode characteristics of CCWs may differ significantly from the characteristics of residential clothes washers, for which the Appendix J2 test procedure was developed . As part of the engineering analysis, DOE will evaluate the standby and off mode power cha racteristics of CCWs and will assess the applicability of the standby and off mode provisions in Appendix J2 to CCWs

.

Item 1

- 2 DOE invites comment on whether to establish new energy efficiency standards for commercial clothes washers based on the IMEF metric, whic h would incorporate standby and off mode power

.

DOE is also considering establishing new water efficiency standards based on the IWF metric, which would incorporate water consumption from all the temperature cycles included as part of the energy test cycle in Appendix J2. DOE believes that the IWF metric provides a more representative measure of water consumption than the WF metric, which is based on the water consumption of only the cold/cold wash/rinse temperature cycle. DOE also believes that
calculation of IWF is more consistent with the calculation of MEF and IMEF.13

Item 1

- 3 DOE invites comment on its whether to establish new water efficiency
standards based on the IWF metric, which would incorporate water consumption from all the temperature cycles included as p art of the energy test cycle in Appendix J2.

1.4 General Rulemaking Process and Stakeholder Participation

EPCA requires that any new or amended energy conservation standard be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy or water efficiency that is t echnologically feasible and economically justified. To determine whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA requires that DOE determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by considering , to the greatest extent practicable , the following:

(1) T he economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and consumers of the affected products ; (2) T he savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the product compared to any increases in the initial cost, or maintenance e xpense ; (3) T he total projected amount of energy and water (if applicable) savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard ; (4) A ny lessening of the utility or the performance of the products likely to result from the imposition of the standard ; (5) T he 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) T he need for national energy and water conservation; and (7) O ther factors the Secretary consi ders relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295 (o)(2)(B)(i) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))

DOE fulfills these and other applicable requirements by conducting a series of analyses throughout the rulemaking process. Table 1

. 4 shows the individual analyses that are performed to satisfy each of the requirements within EPCA.14

Table 1

. 4 EPCA Requirements and Corresponding DOE Analyses

EPCA Requirement Corresponding DOE Analysis

Technological Feasibility  Market and Technology Assessment

 Screening Analysis

 Engineering Analysis

Economic Justification :

1. Economic impact on
manufacturers and consumers  Manufacturer Impact Analysis

 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

 Life

- Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis

 Shipments Analysis

2. Lifetime operating cost savings compared to increased cost for the product  Markups for Equipment Price Determination

 Energy and Water Use Determination

 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

3. Total projected energy savings  Shipments Analysis

 National Impact Analysis

4. Impact on utility or performance  Screening Analysis

 Engineering Analysis

5. Impact of any lessening of competition  Manufacturer Impact Analysis

6. Need for national energy and
water conservation  Shipments Analysis

 National Impact Analysis

7. Other factors the Secretary
considers relevant  Emissions Analysis

 Utility Impact Analysis

 Employment Impact Analysis

 Monetization of Emission Reductions Benefits

 Regulatory Impact Analysis

EPCA also requires DOE to solicit views and comments from interested parties regarding any proposed standard s. (42 U.S.C. 6295 (o)(2)(B)(i) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) DOE considers

s t akeholder participation to be an integral part of the process for establishin g energy conservation standards. The Department actively encourages the participation and interaction of
all interested parties during the comment period of each rulema king stage. I nteractions among all interested parties provide a balanced discussion of c ritical information required to conduct the standards rulemaking. DOE involves interested parties through a variety of means, including formal public notifications ( i.e.

, Federal Register notices ) and public meetings.

Subsequent to issuance of this framew ork document, DOE intends to use the analyses performed during the previous CCW rulemaking in the development of a notice of proposed rulemaking15

(NOPR) setting forth proposed energy and water conservation standards for CCW s . DOE
believes that the current state of the CCW industry has not changed significantly from 2008,
when the majority of the analysis for the prior rulemaking was conducted.

DOE plans to publish the following documents during the course of this rulemaking:

 NOPR ( see section 1.4.1 ). The NOPR presents the p roposed trial standard levels (TSLs), which span the range of efficiencies from baseline products to the most efficient technology; DOE’s mode ls and analytical tools used to determine the impact of standards on consumers, manufacturers, and the nation; DOE’s weighting of the impacts ; and the proposed new energy conservation standard levels.

 Final rule ( see section 1.4.2 ) . The final rule presents a discussion of comments received in response to the NOPR, any necessary revisions to the analysis of the impacts of standards, DOE’s weighting of the impacts, and the standard levels DOE is adopting. The
final rule also establishes the effective date of the standards.

DOE intends to follow the schedule shown in Table 1

. 5 for th is rulemaking.

Table 1

. 5 Rulemaking Schedule

Rulemaking Notice Publication Date

Framework Document August 13, 2012

NOPR January 31 , 2014

Final Rule December 31, 201 4

Any amended standards for CCWs promulgated by the f inal r ule would apply to products
manufactured on or after January 1, 201 8

.

Item 1

- 4 DOE invites comment on its propos ed schedule for this rulemaking

.

1.4.1 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR)

During the NOPR stage

, DOE will perform each of the analyses outlined in Section 2 a s described in greater detail in the subsequent sections of this framework document. DOE will present the results of these analyses in a technical support document (TSD) to be published concurrently with the NOPR. The NOPR will be published in the Federal Register , and the TSD
will be available on the DOE website.

The NOPR will summarize the results of these analyses and will present DOE’s preliminary
determination of whether the current standards should be amended, and if so, the proposed new energy conservation standard levels. Publication of the NOPR will be followed by a public16

comment period, including a public meeting. DOE will consider comments from all interested parties and may revise its analysis accordingly in preparation of the final rule.

In addition, DOE will provide the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) with a copy of the NOPR
and TSD to solicit feedback on the impact of any proposed energy conservation standards on competition in the CCW industry . DOJ will review the proposed standard levels and the potential impacts of any lessening of competition that is likely to result from the imposition of standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) DOE will consider DOJ’s determinati on on the impacts of the proposed standard on competition in preparation of the final rule.

1.4.2 Final Rule

After the publication of the NOPR, DOE will consider public comments received on the proposal and accompanying analyses. Based on its review of these co mments, DOE may revise the individual analyses and

/or the proposed standard levels

. B efore issuance of the final rule, DOE
will also consider DOJ’s comments on the NOPR relating to the impacts of the proposed standard levels on competition . DOJ’s comments will be published a s part of the final rule.

The standards rulemaking will conclude with publication of the final rule. DOE will select any final standard levels based on the complete record of the standards rulemaking. The final rule
will publish any fi nal standard levels and their compliance date, and DOE will explain the basis
for their selection. The final rule will be accompanied by a final TSD.17

2. OVERVIEW OF ANALYSES FOR RULEMAKIN G

The purpose of the analyses conducted in support of the standards rulemaking is to ensure that

, consistent with the requirements of EPCA, DOE selects energy conservation standards that achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. In determining whether a standard is economic ally justifi ed, DOE
consider s, to the maximum extent practicable, the seven factors set forth in section 1.4. This analysis includes consideration of the economic impacts on domestic manufacturers and consumers, national benefits

, an d issues of consumer utility.

The specific analyse s include the following, which are explained in greater detail in subsequent
sections of this framework document:

 Market and technology a ssessment (section 3 )

 Screening analysis (section 4 )

 Engineering analysis (section 5 )

 Energy and water use determination (section 6 )

 Markups for equipment price determination (section 7 )

 Life

- cycle cost and payback period analysis (section 8 )

 Shipments analysis (section 9 )

 National impact analysis (section 10 )

 Consumer subgroup analysis (section 11 )

 Manufacturer impact analysis (section 12 )

 Utility impact analysis (section 13 )

 Employment impact analysis (section 14 )

 Emissions an alysis (section 15 )

 Monetization of Emission Reductions Benefits (section 16 )

 Regulatory impact analysis ( section 17 )18

3. MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

The market and technology assessment will provide information about the CCW industry that DOE will use throughout the rulemaking. This assessment is used to identify potential design options or efficiency levels for each product class.

3.1 Market Assessment

D OE will qualitatively and quantitatively characterize the structure of the CCW industry and market. In the market assessment, DOE will identify and characterize the manufacturers of
CCWs , estimate market shares and trends, address regulatory and non

- regula tory initiatives intended to improve energy efficiency or reduce energy consumption, and explore the potential for technological improvements in the design and manufacturing of CCWs

. DOE will also review product literature, industry publications, and compa ny websites.

During the market assessment, DOE will gather shipments, market share and other relevant data

to identify important issues such as potential small business impacts, competitive disruptions, and other factors that may arise from enacting stand ards. Market structure data will be particularly useful for assessing competitive impacts as part of th e manufacturer impact analysis.

As noted previously, n ew energy efficiency standards for CCWs will become effective January 8, 2013. DOE expects th i s t ransition to impact its characterization of the CCW market, particularly for top

- loading CCWs

. As discussed further below, DOE is unaware of any top

loading CCWs currently on the market that exceed the amended standards beginning in January
2013. M anufactu rers may introduce new top

- loading models to the market shortly before or after the 2013 compliance date . DOE plans to analyze top

- loading and front

- loading CCW model s currently on the market, as well as any new model s that become available after the new standards
become effective.

Item 3

- 1 DOE requests information that would contribute to the market assessment for
the commercial clothes washers covered in this rulemaking (e.g., current product features and efficiencies, product feature and efficiency trends, and h istorical product shipments and prices).

3.2 Product Classes

The general criteria for separation into different classes include (1) type of energy used; (2) capacity; or (3) other performance

- related features that justify the establishment of a separate

energy conservation standard, considering the utility of the feature to the consumer and other
factors deemed appropriate by the Secretary. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q ) and 6316(a) )

During the previous energy conservation standard s rulemaking for CCWs

, DOE promulgated
standards for two product classes : top

- loading and front

- loading. DOE stated that it had identified at least one consumer utility related to the method of loading clothes. Specifically,
DOE determined that the longer cycle times of front

- loading CCWs vers us cycle times for top

-19

loaders are likely to significantly impact consumer utility. In commercial and multi

- housing settings, it is beneficial to consumers with multiple, sequential laundry loads to approximately
match CCW cycle times to those of the drye rs to maximize throughput and minimize wait times,
and wash times of 70

– 115 minutes would be longer than most drying cycles. Because the longer
wash cycle times for front

- loaders arise from the reduced mechanical action of agitation as compared to top

- loaders, DOE stated such longer cycles may be required to achieve the

necessary cleaning, and thereby constitute a performance

- related utility of frontloading CCWs versus top

- loading CCWs under the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). 75 FR 1122, 1130

- 34.

F or the reasons stated above and in the previous rulemaking

, DOE is considering retain ing these two product classes during this rulemaking.

Item 3

- 2 DOE seeks comment on its proposal to retain two product classes for
commercial clothes washers based on the location of access (i.e., top

- loading and front

loading)

.

3.3 Technology Assessment

The purpose of the technology assessment is to understand how the product uses energy and potential changes that could reduce energy consumption. DOE typically uses information about
“t echnology options”

— existing technologies and prototype designs and concepts

— to identify technologies product manufacturers could use to attain higher energy efficiency levels. In consultation with interested parties, DOE will develop a list of technologies to consider in this analysis

.

Initially, this list will include a subset of the design options considered during the most recent
CCW standards rulemaking. Based on a preliminary review of the CCW market and information published in recent trade publicati ons, technical reports, and manufacturer literature, DOE has
observed that the results of the technology screening analysis performed during the previous rulemaking remain largely relevant for this rulemaking 1 . Based on further analysis of the CCW market, the residential clothes washer market, and discussions with manufacturers of both commercial and residential clothes washers, however, DOE believes that some of the technologies previously included in the analysis would provide negligible, if any, energy savings. DOE is considering eliminating those options from consideration in this rulemaking.

DOE believes that the technolog y options listed in Table 3

. 1 represent t he most viable options
for CCWs

.

1 Technical support document from the previous commercial clothes washer rulemaking available at
ht tp://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/clothes_washers_ecs_final_rule_tsd.html or at the regulations.gov website by searching for Docket No. EERE

- 2006

- STD

- 0127

.20

Table 3

. 1 Technology Options for Commercial Clothes Washers

1. Adaptive water fill

2. Advanced agitation concepts for top

- loading machines

3. Capacity increase

4. Direct

- drive motor

5. M otor efficiency improvements

6. Ozonated laundering

7. Polymer bead cleaning

8. Spray rinse or similar water

- reducing rinse technology

9. Thermostatically controlled mixing valves

10. W ater extraction improvements to reduce remaining moisture content

11. Water fill sensors with greater accuracy/precision

12. W ater re circulation loop

DOE had not included capacity increase as a technology option in the previous CCW rulemaking. However, through its testing and reverse

- engineering analysis performed for the
residenti al clothes washer rulemaking, DOE believes that increasing the capacity of the wash
basket represent s a n option for improving the energy efficiency of a clothes washer.

DOE had also not included polymer bead cleaning in the previous CCW rulemaking. However, DOE has become aware of polymer bead cleaning field trials conducted in the United Kingdom in industrial laundry facilities, with ongoing development of prototypes for commercial and residential settings. Therefore, DOE has added this technology option for consideration in its initial technology screening.

Item 3

- 3 DOE seeks comment on whether any of the technologies listed in Table 3

. 1 should be removed from consideration , or whether any other technologies not listed in
Table 3

. 1 should be consider ed as technology options

.

4. SCREENING ANALYSIS

The p urpose of the screening analysis is to screen out technology options that DOE will not consider in the rulemaking.

DOE will assess each technology option identified in Table 3

. 1 according to the following four
criteria :

1. Technological feasibility. DOE will not further consider technologies that are not incorporated in commercially available products or in working prototypes.

2. Practicability to manufacture, insta ll, and service. If DOE determines that mass production of a product’s technology and reliable installation and servicing of the21

technology could not be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the market by the time of the effective date of the standard, then it will not consider that technology further.

3. Adverse impacts on product utility or availability. If DOE determines that a technology
would have significant adverse impact on the utility of the product , including impacts to significant subgroups o f consumers, or would result in the unavailability of any covered product type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, size, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products generally available in
the United S tates at the current time, it will not consider that 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 that technology
further.

DOE will designate the technology options that pass the screening criteria as “design options” and will consider these options in the development of cost

- efficiency curves in the engineering analysis.

Item 4

- 1 DOE seeks comment on whether any of the technologies li sted in Table 3

. 1 should be removed from consideration based on any of the screening criteria listed above. If so, please provide details regarding the specific screen ing criteria that would preclude DOE from considering such technology options.

5. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

The purpose of the engineering analysis is to determine the relationship between manufacturer cost and energy efficiency for CCW s. In determining the cost

- efficiency relationship, DOE will perform reverse

- engineering “teardowns” to estimate the increase in manufacturer cost associated with technological changes that increase the efficiency of these products relative to the baseline models. To support the en gineering analysis , DOE will measur e the energy and

water consumption of representative units at each of the TSLs under consideration using DOE’s test procedure at Appendix J1.

Th e following section s describe the identification of baseline models (section 5.1 )

, identification
of higher efficiency levels (section 5.2 ), DOE’s approach for determining the cost

- efficiency relationship (section 5.3 ), consideration of proprietary designs ( section 5.4 ) , and consideration of impacts on consumer utility (section 5.5 )

.

5.1 Baseline Models

For each es tablishe d product classes, DOE will select a baseline model as a reference point against which any changes resulting from energy conservation standards can be measured. The baseline model in each product class represents the characteristics of common or typical22

equipment in that class. Typically, a baseline model is o ne that minimally meets current energy conservation standards.

DOE intends to use the amended energy conservation standard s applicable beginning January 8,
2013 to characterize the baseline models for top

- loading and front

- loading CCW s. These
amended stan dards are indicated in Table 1

. 3 . As stated previously, DOE is unaware of any top

loading CCW s currently on the market that exceed the amended MEF and WF standards beginning in January 2013. M anufacturers may introduce new top

- loading models to the market that comply with the amended standards , and DOE will consider any newly

- introduced models during the course of this rulemaking

.

Item 5

- 1 DOE seeks input from interested parties on whether t he amended energy efficiency standard level s effective January 8, 2013 are appropriate for characterizing the
baseline efficiency levels for this rulemaking

.

5.2 Higher Efficiency Levels

DOE will analyze the front

- loading product class to determine the relevant TSLs and to develop
incremental manufact uring cost data at each higher efficiency level. Table 5

. 1 present s the efficiency levels DOE will consider analyz ing for front

- loading CCW s , based on a preliminary
review of the current market

. Because DOE is unaware of any top

- load ing CCWs that exceed
the January 8, 2013 baseline efficiency level (1.60 MEF/8.5 WF) , DOE is not specify ing more efficient standard levels for top

- loading machines at this time. Should manufacturers develop models above the baseline efficiency level, or s hould working prototypes above the baseline efficiency level become available, DOE will consider incorporating additional efficiency levels in its analysis.

Table 5

. 1 Efficiency Levels Under Consideration for Front

- Loading Commercial Clothes Washer Analysis

Level Efficiency Level Source Efficiency Level

MEF WF

Baseline DOE Standard 2.0 0 5.5

1 CEE Tier 2 2.2 0 4.5

2 CEE Tier 3 2.4 0 4.0

3 Maximum Available 2.6 0 3.7

For front

- loaders, DOE will consider defin ing higher efficiency levels based on the Consortium for Energy Efficiency ( CEE ) Tier levels for CCW s. DOE notes that CEE Tier 1 for CCW s specifies a rating of 2.00 MEF/6.0 WF, which does not meet the water factor requirement of the
revi sed energy efficiency standard effective January 8, 2013. DOE seeks input from interested parties on the higher efficiency levels identified for front

- loading CCW s.23

The “maximum available” efficiency level for front

- loaders and the baseline efficiency lev el for top

- loaders correspond to models with the maximum efficiency currently available in the market, but may not necessarily correspond to the max

- tech 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) ; 6316(a) ) Models with maximum available efficiency may not incorporate all possible design o ptions for increasing efficiency and, therefore, may not achieve an efficiency level as high as the max

- tech level. Also, some of the design options that have passed the screening analysis may not yet be commercially available ( e.g. , are only in working pr ototypes) and, therefore, would not be found in products with
maximum available efficiency

. DOE seek s input from interested parties to determine appropriate

max

- tech efficiency levels.

Item 5

- 2 DOE seeks input on whether any higher efficiency levels should be cons idered for top

- loading commercial clothes washers, and if so, the basis for such consideration.

Item 5

- 3 DOE seeks inpu t on the appropriateness of the higher efficiency levels identified for front

- loading commercial clothes washers.

Item 5

- 4 DOE seeks input on appropriate m aximum technologically feasible efficiency levels and the basis for why those levels should be selected

.

5.3 Approach for Determining the Cost

- Efficiency Relationship

DOE will use an efficiency

- level approach to determine the relationship between manufacturer cost and energy efficiency . Using this approach, DOE will examine the aggregated incremental increases in manufacturer selling price at a specified efficiency . DOE will solicit information regarding the technology design options and incremental manufactur ing costs required for achieving each higher efficiency level.

DOE will also conduct a reverse

- engineering analysis to identify the incremental cost and efficiency improvement associated with each design option or design option combination

— in effect, sup plementing the efficiency

- level approach with a design

- option approach as needed. DOE will conduct reverse engineering through physical testing and teardowns of CCW models at key efficiency levels to determine baseline manufacturing cost as well as increme ntal manufacturing costs above the baseline. Reverse engineering entails a detailed product disassembly process, whereby :

(1) R epr esentative units are torn down; (2) A ll components, processes, assembly, and manufacturing steps are noted in an
activities

- based cost model; and (3) A ll manu facturing costs are calculated.24

Representative units are chosen based on the range of efficiencies, design options, and capacities. DOE proposes to perform reverse engineering on units rated at baseline and at each identified higher efficiency level for each analyzed product class.

DOE will estimate the contribution of the depreciation of conversion capital expenditures to the
incremental overhea d. During manufacturer interviews, DOE will gather information about the capital expenditures necessitated by increasing the efficiency of the baseline models to various efficiency levels ( i.e. , conversion capital expenditures by efficiency or energy

- use l evel). DOE will also request information about the depreciation method used to expense the conversion capital.

DOE may supplement the reverse

- engineering data with information from catalogs, websites, and trade publications to create a wider set of units for its cost

- efficiency analysis.

DOE will also supplement these cost data with information obtained through manufacturer interviews. These confidential interviews will provide a deeper understanding of the various combinations of technologies used to in crease product efficiency and their associated manufacturing costs

. DOE will maintain confidentiality of proprietary data while allowing the public to examine the cost and design assumptions that underlie the cost

- efficiency estimates.

Item 5

- 5 DOE requests feedb ack on the use of an efficiency

- level approach to
determin e the relationship between manufacturer cost and energy efficiency for
commercial clothes washers, supplemented, as needed, by a design

- option approach.

5.4 Proprietary Designs

DOE will consider in its engineering and economic analyses all design options that are commercially available or present in a working prototype, including proprietary designs and technologies. However, DOE will consider a proprietary design in the subsequent analyses only
if the a chieved efficiency level can also be reached using other non

- proprietary design options. If the proprietary design is the only approach available to achieve a given efficiency level, then DOE will reject that efficiency level because the analytical results appear to favor one
manufacturer over others.

DOE is sensitive to manufacturer concerns about proprietary designs and will maintain the confidentiality of any proprietary data submitted by manufacturers or discussed during
manufacturer interviews. DOE p repar es aggregated results for DOE’s analysis that do not divulge sensitive raw data, but that enable other interested parties to review and comment on the aggregated dataset. To prevent public disclosure of the data due to actions taken by a third party, interested parties providing confidential information to DOE must submit that data according to
10 CFR 1004.11 indicating in writing which data should remain confidential . This information will provide input to the manufacturer impact analysis and other e conomic analyses.25

Item 5

- 6 Are there proprietary designs or technologies for commercial clothes washers of which DOE should be aware in this rulemaking? If so, what are these designs or technologies and how should DOE acquire the cost data necessary for evaluating them ?

5.5 Impacts on Consumer Utility

EPCA requires DOE to consider any lessening of the utility or the performance of a covered product likely to result from the imposition of a new standard. (42 USC 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV), 42 USC 6316(a)) As part of its analys is of higher efficiency levels, DOE will consider whether new standards may impact the utility of commercial clothes washers

.

Item 5

- 7 DOE seeks comment on whether any new standards may impact the utility of commercial clothes washers. If such impacts exist, can the effects be quantified? If so,
how?

6. ENERGY AND WATER USE ANALYSIS

The energy and water use analysis establishes the annual energy and water consumption of the equipment and assesses the energy

- and water

- savings potential of various equipment efficiencies. DOE uses the annual energy consumption and energy

- and water

- savings potential in the LCC and PBP analyses to establish the c usto mer operating cost savings at various equipment efficiency levels.

The annual energy and water use of a CCW d epends on the energy and water use per cycle and the number of cycles per year.

To calculate the energy and water use per cycle, DOE plans to use the new Appendix J2 test procedure , as described in the paragraphs that follow

. (77 FR 13888 , Mar. 7, 2012 )

. Based on the known MEF, WF, and remaining moisture content (RMC) of the washer, the test procedure provides algorithms to derive energy and water use per cycle.

The test procedure uses a single value for number of cycles, which is based on residential us e. DOE will need to establish an appropriate range of usage specific to CCW in the field. Because the predominant applications of CCW s are in multi

- family buildings and laundromats, DOE plans to focus on these two building applications to determine the app ropriate number of CCW cycles per year. Other applications include lodging establishments (e.g., hotels and motels), inpatient health care facilities, and nursing homes. Relative to multi

- family buildings and laundromats, these other applications are a sma ll segment of the market. In addition, these other applications typically use larger

- size clothes washers that exceed the capacity limits defined for
DOE

- covered products, as described in section 1.1

.26

For the analysis conducted for the previous rulemaking, DOE relied on several research studies to arrive at average annual use cycles of 1,241 and 2,190 for multi

- family and laundromat applications, respectively. The data sources that informed these usage numbers include Multi

Housing Laundry Association (MLA) and the Coin Laundry Association (CLA) , CEE, and
Southern California Edison. DOE also used data from an “Assessment of High

- Performance, Family

- Sized Commercial Clothes Washers” published in May 2000 2

. For the current rulemaking

, DOE will rely on this data, as well as research sponsored by the MLA and the CLA,
trade associations that represent the commercial laundry industry, to establish use ( cycles per year)

. DOE does not intend to rely on t he Comme rcial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) conduct ed by DOE’s Energy Information Administration ( EIA ) because neither energy nor water consumption is specified for buildings identified with laundry facilities in the CBECS
dataset

. DOE will also revie w other information, such as research sponsored by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) , San Diego County Water Authority, CEE, and the California Energy Commission

, for its relevance.

For the previous rulemaking, given the significant variabilit y in the usage values gathered from the various sources, DOE determined the variability in annual energy and water consumption using the average usage data. For multifamily application, DOE utilized the eight average usage
values

, for multi

- family building s , each from a specific study, ranging from a low of 1.5 cycles per day to a high of 6.4 cycles per day. For laundromats, the low and high values were 3 and 8 cycles per day, respectively. DOE utilized the range to conduct a sensitivity analysis to
determi ne how high and low estimates of us age affe ct the economic feasibility of amended energy conservation standards. DOE will follow a similar approach for this analysis.

Item 6

- 1 DOE seeks stakeholder input on the approaches considered for specifying the typical ann ual energy and water consumption. Most importantly, DOE is interested in new sources of data that can assist in characterizing the cycles per year for commercial clothes
washers. Drafts of the data r equest sheets are contained in A ppendix A.

7. MARKUPS ANALYSIS

DOE uses customer prices for equipment at the baseline efficiency level and all other efficiency levels under consideration in the LCC and PBP analyses and the national impact analysis. DOE
uses manufacturer

- to

- customer markups to convert the manu facturer selling price estimates from the engineering analysis to customer prices. The manufacturer

- to

- customer markups are in addition to the markups on production costs that DOE uses to estimate manufacturer selling price in the engineering analysis. To validate these markups, DOE will collect data on current prices in
the market , i.e., by purchasing data sets or downloading data from distributor Internet sites.

Before it can develop markup information, however, DOE must identify distribution channels ( i.e. , how the equipment is distributed from the manufacturer to the customer ).

2 Available online at http://digitalcorpora.org/corp/nps/files/govdocs1/384/384154.pdf

.27

For the previous rulemaking , DOE based the distrib ution channels on data developed by the CEE (see Figure 7.1 ). The CEE states that the relevant portions of the commercial, family

- sized
clothes washer market ca n be divided into three areas: laundromats; private multi

- family housing; and large institutions

. 3 For these three market areas, t he CEE data indicate d that an overwhelming majority of commercial clothes washers are so ld through distributors or to route operators. Laundromats generally purchase their equipment through distributors while multi

family housing and large institutions generally lease their equipment from route operators. For purposes of developing the mark ups, DOE based its calculations on the distribution channel that involved only distributors. DOE assumed that the markups and the resulting equipment prices determined for the distribution channel involving distributors would be representative of the pric es paid by owners leasing their equipment from route operators. DOE seeks input to
determine if this is a reasonable assumption for the distribution of commercial clothes washers.

Figure 7

. 1 Distribution Channel for Commercial Clothes Washers

Once it establishes proper distribution channels for the equipment , DOE will rely on E conomic
C ensus data from the U.S. Census Bureau as well as input from the industry and any other interested parties to define how equipment is marked up from the manufacturer to the c ustomer

.

3 As noted in section 6, DOE is analyzing the laundromat and private multi

- family housing applications; the large institution application is significantly smaller than these two main applications . In addition, large institutions typically use larger

- size clothes washers that exceed the capacity limits defined for DOE

- covered products

.28

To the extent possible, DOE also will us e collected price data to help validate overall
manufacturer

- to

- c ustomer markups.

DOE plans to determine an average manufacturer markup by examining the annual Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10

- K reports filed by publicly traded manufacturers whose equipment range includes clothes washers. DOE will determine an average markup for
distributors by analyzing both E conomic Census data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the
annual SEC 10

- K reports filed by publicly traded distribution channel participants

.

In addition to developing the manufacturer and distributor markups, DOE will develop and
include sales taxes to calculate final equipment prices. Th e Sales Tax Clearinghouse 4 is an Internet source that DOE intends to use to calculate applicable sales taxes.

To the extent possible, DOE also will use collected distributor price data to validate the overall
manufacturer

- to

- c usto mer markup. While DOE oft en relies on point of sale data from NPD Group, Inc., this data set is not available for commercial clothes washers . As an alternative, DOE may rely on distributors’ Internet sites or conversations with distributors and route operators

, although the repres entativeness of any given price data point or industry contact is unknown.

Item 7

- 1 DOE welcomes comments on whether the distribution channels described
above are the same.

Item 7

- 2 DOE seeks input on data sources for establishing the mark

- ups.

8. LIFE

- CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSES

8.1 Overview

DOE analyzes the effect of amended standards on consumers by evaluating changes in the LCC of owning and operating the product, as well as the PBP of higher

- efficiency products. The LCC of a product is the cost a product incurs over its lifetime, taking into account both purchase price and operating expenses. The PBP represents the time it takes to recover the additional installed
cost of the more

- ef

ficient device through annual operating cost savings.

DOE analyzes the net effect on consumers by calculating the LCC and PBP using the engineering performance data (section 5 ), the energy

- use and end

- use load characterization data ( section 6 ), and the markups for product price determination (section 7 ). Inputs to the LCC calculation include the installed cost to the consumer (purchase price plus installation cost), operating expenses (energy expenses, and, if applicable, repair costs and m aintenance costs), the lifetime of the product or other defined period of analysis, and a discount rate. Inputs to the

4 Sales Tax Clearinghouse, Inc., State sales tax rates along with comb ined average city and county rates . Available

at http://thestc.com/STrates.stm

.29

payback period calculation include the installed cost to the consumer and first

- year operating

costs.

DOE considers both LCC and PBP to determine the impacts of potential energy conservation standards on consumers of the covered products. C alculation of LCC uses a discount rate (that depends on consumers’ cost of financing) and takes into account changing energy prices over
time.

DOE wil l perform the LCC and PBP analyses using a spreadsheet model combined with Crystal Ball (a commercially

- available software add

- on program to Microsoft Excel used to conduct stochastic analysis using Monte Carlo simulation and probability distributions) to account for uncertainty and variability among the input variables. Each Monte Carlo simulation will consist of 10,000 LCC and PBP calculations. The models will perform each calculation using input values sampled from probability distributions or characteri zed with single point values dep ending on available data and variability therein . The analy tical results will be a distribution of 10,000 data points showing the range of LCC savings and PBPs for a given efficiency level
relative to the base

- case efficienc y projection . For any sensitivity analyses it conducts, DOE will account for correlations that may exist between inputs.

The following sections discuss the methodologies DOE plans to use to develop several of the inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis, inclu ding: (1) energy prices; (2) discount rates; (3) maintenance, repair, and installation costs; and (4) product lifetime. The other inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis

— namely, manufacturer costs, annual energy consumption, and markups for
the determination of consumer retail prices

—have been discussed previously.

DOE intends to conduct the LCC and PBP analysis for two commercial clothes washer product classes, top

- loading and front

- loading.

The LCC and PBP analysis implicitly assumes that the purchaser of t he equipment also pays the operating costs for the equipment. In the case of CCWs in multi

- family buildings, t hose who own CCWs (usually route operators) often do not incur the operating costs as do, generally,
owners of multi

- family dwellings. This is an example of a “ split incentive ” situation . As it did in the previous rulemaking, DOE plans to assume that the purchasers are able to either pass on the higher purchase costs of more efficient CCWs , or otherwise recover those costs. To the extent possible, D OE will attempt to evaluate the validity of this assumption.

Item 8

- 1 DOE seeks input on the extent to which purchasers of CCWs are able to either pass on the higher purchase costs of more efficient CCWs, or otherwise recover those

costs

.30

8.2 Energy, Water, and Wastewater Prices

Energy and water prices are used to calculate the annual cost savings at different efficiency
levels. DOE will derive average energy prices using recent EIA data 5 for each of the nine Census
D ivisions and four large s tates to esta blish ap propriate energy prices. DOE is separating out those four large s tates to analyze the impact of standards on 32% of the U.S. general population and to develop energy prices at the smallest geographic area as the data permit. Looking at smaller geographic a reas enables DOE to examine additional regional differences in the variability of energy prices. For those Census divisions containing one of the large s tates, DOE
intends to leave out the data for those s tates to avoid double

- counting when calculating reg ional average values. The Pacific region average, for example, will not include California, and the West South Central region average will not include Texas.

To calculate natural gas and oil prices for commercial consumers DOE will use data from the EIA publications Natural Gas Monthly 6 and Petroleum Navigator. 7 DOE will use water and wastewater rate survey data from the AWWA and Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (a water and wastewater financial consulting firm) to determine water and wastewater prices.

If the EIA and AWWA/Raftelis data demonstrate a large variability in energy, water, and wastewater prices, DOE will conduct sensitivity analyses to determin e how high and low energy, water, and wastewater price estimates affect the economic feasibility of amended energy
conservation standards.

DOE will use projections of national average energy prices to commercial consumers to estimate future energy prices in its LCC analysis. DOE will use the most recent available edition of EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook ( AEO ) as the default source of projections for future energy prices. DOE will base projections of future water and wastewater prices on an examination of tr ends in historical prices.

Item 8

- 2 DOE seeks stakeholder input on the planned approach for estimating current and forecasted energy, water, and wastewater prices.

8.3 Maintenance, Repair, and Installation Costs

DOE will consider any expected changes to maintenance, r epair, and installation costs for the equipment covered in this rulemaking. Typically, small incremental changes in equipment efficiency incur little or no changes in repair and maintenance costs over baseline equipment

. There is a greater probability that equipment having efficiencies that are significantly higher than the baseline will incur increased repair and maintenance costs, because such equipment is more likely to incorporate technologies that are not widely available. DOE will rely on input from

5 EIA’s 2010 Form 861 data and EIA’s 2011 Form 826 . Available at: http://205.254.135.24/cneaf/electricity/page/eia861.html and http://205.254.135.7/cneaf/electricity/page/eia826.html

. 6 Available at www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/natural_gas_monthly/ngm.htm

. 7 Available at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_dist_dcu_nus_a.htm

.31

m anufacturers and other stakeholders in developing appropriate repair and maintenance cost estimates, as necessary.

Regarding installation costs, unless the efficiency increases considered for this rulemaking result in significantly larger or heavier equip ment, DOE expects that more efficient clothes washers
will not incur increased installation costs.

Item 8

- 3 DOE seeks stakeholder input on whether it is correct to assume that changes in maintenance, repair, and installation costs will be negligible for more effici ent commercial clothes washers. If it is incorrect, DOE is interested in the reasons why this is so and specific ways to correct this assumption.

8.4 E quipment Lifetimes

Product lifetime is the age at which a product is retired from service. In the previous CC W rulemaking, DOE used an average lifetime of 11.25 years for multifamily applications and 7.13 years for Laundromats. DOE tentatively plans to use the same averages for the analyses. In addition, DOE plans to use various literature sources and industry e xperts and input from manufacturers and other interested parties to determine a range for the lifetime of commercial
clothes washers

.

Item 8

- 4 DOE seeks stakeholder input on appropriate lifetimes for the commercial clothes washer classes covered in this rulemaking.

8.5 Customer Discount Rates

DOE uses the discount rate to determine the present value of lifetime operating expenses. The discount rate used in the LCC analysis represents the rate from an individual customer’s perspective. 8

For owners of commercial clothes washers, DOE plans to derive the discount rates from estimates of the finance cost to purchase commercial equipment

. This approach in corporat es the cost of capital for companies that purchase commercial clothes washers. The cost of capital commonly is used to estimate the present value of cash flows to be derived from a typical company project or investment. Most companies use both debt and equity capital to fund investments, so the cost of capital is the weighted

- average cost to the firm of equity and debt financing. DOE plans to estimate the weighted

- average cost of capital for firms in those sectors that purchase CCWs.

Item 8

- 5 DOE seeks stakeholder input on the planned approach for estimating discount rates for commercial customers.

8 The consumer dis count rate is in contrast to the discount rates used in the national impact analysis, which are intended to represent the rate of return of capital in the U.S. economy, as well as the societal rate of return on private consumption. See section 10.3 for add itional information.32

8.6 Energy Efficiency in the Base Case

To estimate the share of consumers that would be affected by a standard at a particular efficiency level, DOE’s LCC and PBP analysis will consider the projected distribution ( i.e. , market shares) of product efficiencies that consumers will purchase in the first compliance year under the base case ( i.e. , the case without amended energy conservation standards). DOE requests market

- share efficiency data ( i.e. , data on the distribution of shipments by efficiency) for the two product
class es of c ommercial clothes washers. Data on efficiency distributions may encompass market
share information for front

- loading and top

- loading units by efficiency levels (i.e. MEF and WF). In the prior rulemaking, DOE based its base case market share data for comme rcial clothes
washers on data that the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers ( AHAM ) provided. AHAM provided shipment

- weighted efficiency data rather than market share data by efficiency
level . For the year 2005, the shipment

- weighted efficiencies of commercial clothes washers as provided by AHAM we re 1.41 MEF and 10.91 WF. For this rulemaking , DOE is requesting
market

- share efficiency data from recent years ( i.e. , 2008

– 2010) , realizing that this information may be difficult to collect . In cases whe re market

- share efficiency data are not available, DOE will use efficiency distributions based on available models as a proxy.

The projection will use available data on recent market trends in clothes washer efficiency and will take into account the pote ntial impacts of the ENERGY STAR program and other programs

or policies that may affect the demand for more

- efficient commercial clothes washers (such as consumer rebate programs or State tax credits to consumers that encourage the purchase of more

efficie nt products, and manufacturer tax credits that encourage the production of more

- efficient products).

Item 8

- 6 DOE requests data from stakeholders to characterize the current mix of commercial clothes washer efficiencies in the market, as well as expected trends in the next five years.

8.7 Rebuttable Presumption Analysis

In addition to the LCC and PBP calculations discussed above, DOE also conducts a rebuttable presumption analysis for covered products. EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if DOE 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 th e energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure

. ( 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) ) DOE also routinely conducts a full economic analysis that considers the ful l range of impacts, including those to the consumer, manufacturer, n ation, and environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE to evaluate the economic justification for a potential standar d level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification).33

9. SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS

DOE develops shipment forecasts of products to calculate the national impacts of potential energy conservation standards o n energy consumption, net present value ( NPV ) , and future manufacturer cash flows. DOE plans to develop shipments forecasts (from the assumed compliance date of a new standard to 30 years after compliance is required) based on an analysis of key market dri vers for commercial clothes washers.

9.1 Base

- Case Forecast

For commercial clothes washers, DOE intends to develop a base

- case shipments projection for two product classes, top

- loading and front

- loading. DOE plans to determine annual shipments in
the base cas e by accounting for : (1) replacements due to failure; (2) commercial clothes washer
installations in new multi

- family housing and new laundromats; and (3) retirements and/or
installations due to condominium conversions.

DOE plans to use multi

- family housi ng construction forecasts from the latest available edition of
EIA’s AEO to determine shipments to new construction. To determine replacement shipments, DOE will use the same equipment lifetimes and retirement functions that it generates for the
LCC and PB P analyses.

In the previous rulemaking, DOE found a significant drop in shipments after 1998 extending up
to 2005. To account for this drop and to reconcile the historical shipments with the accounting model, DOE assumed every retired unit is not replace d immediately. The market share of retired units not replaced was relatively large due to the significant drop in shipments after 1998. The share of retired units not replaced during 1999

– 2005 fluctuated between nine and 31 percent.
To determine the shar e of these units after the year 2005, DOE reviewed data from the Census Bureau’s American Housing Survey on the saturation of in

- unit washers (i.e., residential washers
used in multi

- family units) in the multi

- family stock and new multi

- family construction . DOE
found that the saturation of in

- unit washers in new construction had stayed relatively constant
while the saturation in the multi

- family building stock has increased by approximately 16 percent. DOE estimated that the growth in in

- unit washer saturat ions in the multi

- family stock over the last ten years was caused by conversions of rental property to condominiums, resulting in the gradual phase out or non

- replacement of failed commercial clothes washers in common

area laundry facilities. For the curr ent rulemaking, DOE will apply a similar approach to
determine the non

- replacement percentage due to condominium conversions. DOE also will take into consideration any other input provided by stakeholders.

DOE plans to calibrate its forecasts against historical shipments.

Item 9

- 1 DOE seeks historical shipments data broken down by product class.

Item 9

- 2 DOE seeks input on whether conversions from apartments to condos/townhouses are still occurring.34

9.2 Impacts of Standards on Equipment Shipments

DOE will also develop shipments forecasts for commercial clothes washers for each set of efficiency levels (standards) analyzed . Because the standards

- case forecasts consider the increase in purchase price and the decrease in operating costs caused by standards, forecasted shipments typically deviate from the base case. Because the purchase price tends to have a larger impact than operating cost on equipment purchase decisions, standards

- case forecasts typically show a drop in equipment shipments relative to the base case.

DOE’s past standards analyses have attempted to quantify the sensitivity of shipments to increased purchase prices and operating cost savings

. DOE has conducted literature reviews and analyses of historical applianc e price and efficiency data to develop estimates of the price elasticity of demand for appliances. DOE will attempt to develop price elasticities specifically
for commercial clothes washers and will also evaluate the sensitivity of shipments of one clothes washer type ( e.g ., top

- loading) to changes in the price of another type ( e.g ., front

- loading). DOE developed similar cross

- price elasticity for the residential clothes washer (RCW) direct final rule announced on May 11, 2012. 9 The analysis for the residen tial units indicated that front loader market share is positively correlated with top loader price and size and negatively correlated with front loader price. These regression results were used to derive the cross price impact of a change in
the front load ing washer price on the top loading market share (and vice versa). For example, a 10% increase in the mean price of front loader washers in the data resulted in a 10.7 % increase in the top

loading market share. Thus, the cross

- price elasticity on top

- load ing market share (percent change in top

- loading market share over percent change in front

- loading price) is 1.07.

DOE will attempt to obtain data relevant to the commercial clothes washer market. In the alternative,
DOE may rely on estimates of price el asticity from the RCW analysis. DOE will also consider modeling standards

- case shipments forecasts with scenarios ( i.e. , specified impacts to equipment shipments).

Item 9

- 3 DOE requests input from manufacturers and other stakeholders on historical shipments by eff

iciency, historical prices of CCW for specific product categories.

Item 9

- 4 DOE seeks input from manufacturers and other stakeholders on the potential impact of amended CCW energy conservation standards on equipment shipments, and whether the elasticities developed for RCW would be appropriate for CCW.

10. NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

This section discusses DOE’s assessment of the aggregate impacts of potential energy conservation standards at the national level. Measures of impact that DOE will report include the
future na tional energy savings (NES) from candidate standards and the net present value (NPV)
of total customer costs and benefits

.

9 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/rcw_direct_final_rule_5_14_2012.pdf35

Analyzing impacts of energy conservation standards for commercial clothes washers requires a comparison of projected energy consumpt ion with and without new or amended standards. The forecasts contain projections of annual equipment shipments in both the base and standards cases (section 9 ), the annual energy and water consumption of new equipment (section 6 ), and the purchase price of new equipment (section 7 ).

10.1 Projected Efficiency Trends

A key component of the NIA is the projected energy efficiency trends for the base case (without new standards) and for each standards case. For commercial clothes washers, the forecasted efficiencies represent the annual shipment

- weighted energy and water consumption and

wastewater production during the shipments projection period (that is, from the assumed compliance date of a new standard to 30 years after compliance with the standard is required ).

DOE will also consider the mix of efficiencies sold in the absence of new standards and how that mix might change over time. DOE will collect data on historical equipment shipments and market shares of the various efficiency levels offered for each product class for the years 2000

- 2011

. DOE will also attempt to collect shipment

- weighted average efficiency data dating back to 199 5

. Based on detectable trends in the collected efficiency data, DOE will project base

- case shipment

- weig hted efficiencies (SWEF) by product class. DOE intends to rely on input from
AHAM

, appliance manufacturers, and other stakeholders to develop base

- case historical shipment

- weighted average efficiencies. For the previous rulemaking, AHAM provided shipment w eighted average efficiency data (MEF and WF) for commercial clothes washers.
DOE seeks the same type of data for both clothes washer product classes.

DOE may also consider developing its own estimates based on the aggregated historical SWEF data, past and current energy conservation standards, and historical shipments data disaggregated by product class. To project base

- case efficiencies, in addition to determining detectable trends
i n any historical SWEF data provided, DOE intends to review data from the ENERGY STAR program to determine the program’s effect on increasing equipment efficiency. Based on the trends in the historical SWEF data and the ENERGY STAR program’s success at tran sforming
the commercial clothes washer market, as well its potential for future impacts on equipment efficiency, DOE will forecast base

- case efficiency trends for each product class.

To estimate the impact that standards may have in the year compliance becomes required, DOE has used “roll

- up” and/or “shift” scenarios in its standards 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 uses the pattern of the base

- case efficiency distribution at and above the new minimum energy conservation standard. DOE will evaluate whether one of these approaches is more reasonable for commercial clothes washers , or whether it would be preferable to use both scenarios in its cal culation of national impacts.

Once DOE establishes the shipment

- weighted efficienc ies for the assumed compliance date of the standard, it will estimate future shipment

- weighted efficiencies for each standards case.36

Item 10

- 1 DOE seeks historical SWEF data by produ ct class. DOE also seeks historical market share data showing the percentage of equipment shipments by efficiency level for as many product classes as possible.

10.2 National Energy Savings

DOE will calculate national energy consumption for each year in the for ecast period. DOE will calculate national energy consumption by fuel type for the base case and each standards case analyzed. For each considered efficiency level , DOE will project energy savings from the products that are the subject of this rulemaking pu rchased in the 30

- year period that begins in the year of compliance with amended standards . The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of products purchased in the 30

- year period.

DOE plans to perform this calculation through the use of a spreadshe et model that multiplies the stock of products (determined by the shipments projection s ) by unit energy savings, accounting for the stock of products affected by the energy conservation standards. In response to comments by stakeholders in prior rulemaking s who asked for a simple, transparent model, DOE has developed NIA spreadsheet models to forecast energy savings from standards at different efficiency levels.

DOE has historically presented NES in terms of primary energy savings. On August 18, 2011,
DO E announced its intention to use full

- fuel

- cycle (FFC) measures of energy use and greenhouse gas and other emissions in the national impact analyses and emissions analyses included in future energy conservation standards rulemakings. (76 FR 51282) While DO E stated in that notice that it intended to use the Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation (GREET) model to conduct the analysis, it also said it would review alternative methods, including the use of NEMS. After evaluating both models and the approaches discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, DOE has determined NEMS is a more appropriate tool for this specific use. Therefore, DOE intends to use the NEMS model, rather than the GREET model, to conduct future FFC analyses. Th e method used to derive the FFC multipliers will be described in the NOPR TSD

.

10.3 Net Present Value

The inputs for determining NPV of the total costs and benefits experienced by consumers of the considered appliances are: (1) total annual installed cost ; (2 ) total annual savings in operating

costs ; (3) a discount factor ; (4) present value of costs ; and (5) present value of savings. DOE calculates net savings each year as the difference between the base case and each standards case
in terms of the total savin gs in operating costs and total increases in installed costs. DOE calculates savings over the life of each product. DOE calculates NPV as the difference between the present value of operating cost savings and the present value of total installed costs.

D OE calculates increases in total installed costs as the product of the difference in total installed cost between the base case and a standards case. DOE expresses savings in operating costs as decreases associated with the lower energy consumption of prod ucts bought in the standards case37

compared to the base case. Total savings in operating costs are the product of savings per unit and the number of units of each vintage that survive in a given year.

According to U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines for Federal agencies, DOE will conduct two NPV calculations, one using a real discount rate of 3 percent and another using a real discount rate of 7 percent (OMB, Circular A

- 4: Regulatory Analysis ( 2003 ) ). The
discount rates for the determ ination 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 “societal rate of time preference,” which is the rate at which society discounts future consumption flows to their present value.

11. CONSUMER SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

A customer subgroup comprises a subset of the population that is likely to be affected disproportionately by new or revised energy conservation standards. The purpose of a subgroup analysis is to determine the extent of this disproportiona te impact. DOE will work with stakeholders early in the rulemaking process to identify any subgroups for consideration. DOE may consider analyzing the impacts of any standards on the following subgroups: (1) laundromats, (2) landlord

- owned apartment buildings, and (3) other related businesses, such as lodging establishments, tha t have on

- site laundry facilities.

In comparing potential impacts on the different customer subgroups, DOE will evaluate variations in energy prices and energy use profiles that might affect the LCC of an energy
conservation standard to certain customer subgroups.

Item 11

- 1 DOE requests input on any customer subgroups it should consider when analyzing standards for commercial clothes washers.

12. MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS

T he manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) provide s an assessment of the potential impacts of

ener gy conservation standards on manufacturers of commercial clothes washers

. Quantitative results of this analysis include estimates of the industry net present value and domestic manufacturing employment both absent and following amended energy conservation standards.
In addition to quantitative estimates, the MIA serves to identify and describe impacts to the industry qualitatively. Qualitative analyses include assessments of key issues facing the commercial clothes washer industry, the cumulative regulato ry burden felt by manufacturers, the impact on competition, and a determination of disproportionate impacts on sub

- groups of manufacturers operating in this industry. 10

10 For additional in formation, see, “Energy Conservation Standards Activities” (Standards Activities), which is
available on the DOE website at: http://www1.eere.en ergy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/congressional_report_013106.pdf

.38

12.1 Sources of Information for the Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Many of the analyses des cribed earlier in this framework document provide important information that DOE uses as inputs for the MIA . Such information include s the manufacturing

costs as taken from the engineering analysis (section 5 ), as well as price fo recasts (section 7 ), and shipments forecasts (section 9 ). DOE supplements this and other information taken from publicly available sources with information gathered during confidential interviews with
manufacturer s

.

DOE conduct s detailed interviews with manufacturers to gain insight into the range of potential impacts of efficiency standards. The interview process plays a critical role in the MIA , since it provides an opportunity for directly affecte d parties to express th eir views on important issues and comment on preliminary findings. During the interviews, DOE solicit s information on a variety of topics including the anticipated impact of st andards on manufacturing costs , sales, direct employment, capital expenditure

, and industry competitiveness. DOE prefers an interactive interview because it helps to clarify responses and provides the opportunity to identify additional issues. DOE ask s that interview participants identify all confidential
infor mation consistent with DOE regulations at 10 CFR 1004.11.

12.2 Industry Cash Flow and Direct Employment Analys e s

To estimate the impact of amended efficiency standards to commercial clothes washer manufactures, DOE uses a discounted cash flow model to arrive at the industry net present value. The industry cash flow model uses a number of inputs including industry weighted average financial parameters, estimated upfront compliance costs, manufacturer production costs , and manufacturer markups, as well as shipm ents and pricing forecasts to determine a series of annual
cash flows . These cash flows begin at the announcement of the new standard and continu e for several years after its implementation. For inputs that carry particular uncertainly, DOE models multip le scenarios to determine the full range of likely impacts to industry. DOE compares the results against base

- case projections that involve no new standards. The financial impact of new
standards is the difference between the two sets of discounted annual cash flows.

The direct employment analysis builds off the industry cash flow model and is used to determine the likely impact to domestic manufacturing employment for the commercial clothes washer industry. This analysis uses the projected industry la bor costs as calculated in the cash flow model in conjunction with labor statistics from the Annual Survey of Manufacturers and confidential information provided by manufacturers to estimate domestic manufacturing employment levels both with and without am ended efficiency standards.

12.3 Manufacturer Subgroup Analysis

It is possible that an industry aggregate analysis may not adequately portray the different degree
to which impacts are felt by different subgroups of manufacturers. DOE recognizes that smaller manufacturers, niche players, and manufacturers whose operations differ significantly from those typical of the industry may be affected differently by standards. Ideally, DOE woul d consider the impact on every firm individually. In highly concentrated industries, this may be possible.39

In industries having numerous participants, however, DOE uses the results of the market and technology assessment to group manufacturers into subgr oups, as appropriate.

For this rulemaking, DOE will consider small businesses as one manufacturer subgroup. Small business size standards are listed by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and industry description. Commercial laund ry, dry

- cleaning and pressing machine manufacturing is classified under NAICS 333312 , and manufacturers must have 500 employees or fewer to qualify as a small business according to the Small Business Administration size
limitations. A search of companies operating under this NAICS code indicates that there is one small business that manufactures commercial clothes washers that may be covered by this rulemaking.

In addition to the small business manufacturer subgroup, following the precedent set by t he
CCW final rule published in 2010, DOE will consider “ low

- volume m anufacturer s ” (LVM) as an additional subgroup. DOE has identified one manufacturer of commercial clothes washers as a
LVM due to it s sole focus on the laundry business, lower total shipme nt volume, and lower

revenues as compared to its competitors . DOE will incorporate this subgroup into its analysis.

DOE examines publicly available data and contacts manufacturers, when needed, to determine if they meet the criteria set forth for the subgroup analysis and if their manufacturing facilities are located within the United States. DOE will then interview qu alifying businesses affected by the rulemaking to determine if there are significant impacts that may result from new energy
conservation standards and how those impacts may differ from the rest of the industry

.

Item 12

- 1 DOE seeks comment on appropriate manufacture r subgroups for commercial clothes washers that DOE should consider in a manufacturer subgroup analysis.

12.4 Competitive Impacts Assessment

EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is likely to result from an imposition of standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and 6316(a)) It further directs the Attorney General to determine in writing the impacts, if any, of any lessening of competition. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii) and 6316(a))

DOE make s a determined effort to gather firm

- specifi c financial information and impacts, and report s the aggregated impact of the standard on the commercial clothes washer industry at large. The competitive impacts analysis focus es on determining any significant disproportionate impacts on specific manufac turers. DOE base s the assessment o n manufacturing cost data and information collected from interviews with manufacturers. DOE provide s the Attorney General with a copy of the NOPR for consideration in his/her evaluation of the impact of standards on the
l essening of competition.

12.5 Cumulative Regulatory Burden

DOE is aware that efficiency standards exist for other products produced by manufacturers of commercial clothes washers. Additionally, DOE is aware that other regulations outside of the40

scope of energy efficiency standards may apply to equipment covered under this rulemaking

. Multiple regulations may result in a significant, cumulative regulatory burden for these manufacturers. Accordingly, DOE will analyze and seek to mitigate the overl apping effects of amended DOE standards and other regulatory actions on manufacturers of commercial clothes
washers

.

Item 12

- 2 What regulations or pending regulations should DOE consider in its examination of cumulative regulatory burden?

13. UTILITY IMPACT ANALYSIS

To estimate the effects of energy conservation standards for commercial clothes washers on the electric and gas utility industries, DOE plans to use EIA’s NEMS

- BT model. NEMS is a large,
multi

- sectoral, partial

- equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector t hat EIA has developed throughout several years, primarily for the purpose of preparing the AEO . NEMS , which is available in the public domain , produces a widely recognized reference case forecast for the United States through 2035

. 11

The utility impact an alysis is a comparison between the NEMS

- BT model results for the base case and standards cases. Typical outputs include forecasts of electricity and gas sales and avoided capacity. DOE plans to conduct the utility impact analysis as a scenario departing fr om the latest AEO reference case. In other words, DOE will model the energy savings impacts from amended energy conservation standards using NEMS

- BT to generate forecasts that deviate from
the AEO reference case.

Item 13

- 1 DOE seeks input from stakeholders regarding its plan to use NEMS

- BT to conduct the utility impact analysis. Is the NEMS

- BT model appropriate for assessing utility impacts of energy conservation standards? If not, why? What would be a more appropriate model for DOE to use?

14. EMPLOYMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS

Employment impacts include direct and indirect impacts. D irect employment impacts are any changes in the number of employees of manufacturers of the equipment subject to standards

, their suppliers, and related service firms. The MIA addresses tho se impact s. Indirect employment impacts from standards consist of the net jobs created or eliminated in the national economy,

11 For more information on NEMS, please refer to the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration documentation. A useful summary is The National Energy Modeling Sy stem: An Overview 2000,
DOE/EIA

- 0581(March 2000), available at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/forecasting/05812000.pdf

. EIA approves use of the name NEMS to describe only an offici al version of the model without any modification to code or data. Because this analysis entails some minor code modifications, and the model is run under various policy scenarios that are variations on EIA assumptions, DOE refers to the model by the name N EMS

- BT.41

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 equipment to which the new standards apply; and (4) the effects of those three factors throughout the economy.

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). The BLS regularly publishes its estimates of the number of jobs per million dollars of economic activity in di fferent sectors of the economy, as well as the jobs created elsewhere in the economy by this same economic activity. Data from BLS indicate that expenditures in the utility sector generally create fewer jobs (both directly and indirectly) than expenditures in other sectors of the economy. 12 There are many reasons for these differences, including wage differences and the fact that the utility sector is more capital

- intensive and less
labor

- intensive than other sectors. Energy conservation standards have the e ffect 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

- int ensive sector ( i.e. , the utility sector) to more
labor

- intensive sectors ( e.g. , the retail and service sectors).

DOE plans to estimate indirect national employment impacts using an input/output model of the U.S. economy called Impact of Sector Energy Technologies version 3.1.1 (ImSET). 13 ImSET is a special

- purpose version of the “U.S. Benchmark National Input

- Output” (I

– O) model, which was designed to estimate the national employment and income effects of energy

- saving technologies.
The ImSET software i ncludes a computer

- based I

– O model having structural coefficients that characterize economic flows among 187 sectors most relevant to industrial, commercial, and residential building energy use

.

DOE notes that ImSET 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

pr edicted by ImSET may over

- estimate actual job impacts over the long run. DOE may consider
the use of other modelin g approaches for examining long run employment impacts

.

Item 14

- 1 DOE welcomes feedback on its approach to assessing national employment impacts

.

15. EMI SSIONS ANALYSIS

In the emissions analysis, which is conducted in the NOPR phase, DOE will estimate the reduction in power sector emissions of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), nitrogen oxides (NO X ), and

12 See Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional Input

- Output Modeling System (RIMS II)

. Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992.

13 J. M. Roop, M. J. Scott, and R. W. Schultz, ImSET 3.1: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies

, PNNL

- 1 8412, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

, 200 9 . Available at: www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/techni cal_reports/PNNL

- 18412.pdf42

mercury (Hg) using NEMS

- BT. In the emissions analysis, NEMS

- BT is run similarly to the AEO NEMS, except that energy use is reduced by the amount of energy saved (by fuel type) due to each considered standard level. The inputs of national energy savings come from the NIA spreadsheet model, while the output is the project ed physical emissions. The net benefit of each
considered standard level is the difference between the projected emissions estimated by NEMS

BT at that level and the latest AEO Reference Case.

In addition to estimating impacts of standards on power sector emissions, DOE will estimate emissions impacts in production activities that provide the energy inputs to power plants. (These are referred to as “upstream” emissions.) This FFC analysis includes impacts on emissions of methane and nitrous oxide, bo th of which are recognized as greenhouse gases.

15.1 Carbon Dioxide

In the absence of any Federal emissions control regulation of power plant emissions of CO 2 , a DOE standard is likely to result in reductions of these emissions. The CO 2 emission reductions
lik ely to result from a standard will be estimated using NEMS

- BT and national energy savings estimates drawn from the NIA spreadsheet model. The net benefit of the standard is the difference between emissions estimated by NEMS

- BT at each standard level consid ered 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.

15.2 Sulfur Dioxide

Sulfur dioxide ( SO 2 ) emissions from affected electric genera ting 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 potential standards’ impact on SO 2 emissions. Title IV of the Clean Air Act s ets an annual emissions cap on SO 2 for affected EGUs in the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia. 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), wh ich created an allowance

- based trading program. In 2008, CAIR was remanded to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 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. Ci r. 2008),
but it remain ed in effect temporarily, consistent with the D.C. Circuit’s earlier opinion in North
Carolina v. EPA , 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008 ). On July 6, 2011 EPA issued a replacement for CAIR, the Cross

- State Air Pollution Rule. 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). On December 30, 2011, however, the D.C. Circuit stayed the new rules while a panel of judges reviews them, and
directed EPA to continue enforcing CAIR (see EME Homer City Generation v. EPA , No. 11

- 1302, Order at *2 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 30, 201 1)).

The attainment of emissions caps is typically 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 increa se in the quantity of unused emissions allowances, there would be an overall reduction in SO 2 emissions from the43

standards. While there remains some uncertainty about the ultimate effects of efficiency
standards on SO 2 emissions 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

.

15.3 Nitrogen Oxides

Under CAIR, there is a cap on NOx emissions in 28 e astern states and the District of Columbia. All these States and D.C. have elected to reduce their NOx emissions by participating in cap

and

- trade programs for EGUs. Therefore, energy conservation standards for commercial clothes
washers may have little or no physical effect on these emissions in the 28 eastern states and the D.C. for the same reasons that they may have little or no physical effect on SO 2 emissions. DOE
uses NEMS

- BT to estimate NOx emissions reductions from possible standards in the State s where emissions are not capped.

15.4 Mercury

On December 21, 2011, EPA announced national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs) for mercury and certain other pollutants emitted from coal and oil

- fired
EGUs. 76 FR 24976. 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 plans to estimate mercury emissions reductions using the most recent NEMS

BT, which may incorporate projected impacts of the NESHAPs.

15.5 Particulate Matter

DOE acknowledges that particulate matter (PM) exposure can impact human health. Power plant emissions can have either direct or indirect impacts on PM. A portion of the pollutants emitted by a power plant are in the form of particulates as they leave the smoke stack. These are direct, or primary, PM emissions. However, the great majority of PM emissions associated with power plants are in the form of secondary sulfates, which are pr oduced at a significant distance from power plants by complex atmospheric chemical reactions that often involve the gaseous (non

particulate) emissions of power plants, mainly SO 2 and NO X . The quantity of the secondary sulfates produced is determined by a very complex set of factors including the atmospheric quantities of SO 2 and NO X , and other atmospheric constituents and conditions. Because these highly complex chemical reactions produce PM comprised of different constituents from different sources, EPA d oes not distinguish direct PM emissions from power plants from the secondary sulfate particulates in its ambient air quality requirements, PM monitoring of ambient air quality, or PM emissions inventories. For these reasons, it is not currently possible to determine how the amended standard impacts either direct or indirect PM emissions. Therefore, DOE is not planning to assess the impact of these standards on PM emissions. Further, as described previously, it is uncertain whether efficiency standards will result in a net decrease in power plant emissions of SO 2 , which are now largely regulated by cap and trade systems.

Item 15

- 1 DOE seeks input on its plans to use NEMS

- BT to analyze emissions impacts of potential standards on commercial clothes washers.44

16. MO NETIZING CARBON DIOXIDE AND OTHER EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

DOE plans to consider 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 standard levels
considered.

In order to estimate the monetary value of benefits resulting from reduced emissions of CO 2 , DOE plans to use the most current social cost of carbon (SCC) values developed and/or agreed to by an interagency process. The SCC is intended to be a monetary measure of the incremental damage resulting from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including, but not limited to, net agricultural productivity loss, human health effects, property damage from sea level rise, and changes in ecosystem services. Any effort to quantify and to monetize the harms associated with climate change will raise serious questions of science, economics, and ethics. But with full regard for the limits of both quantification and monetization, the SCC can be used to provide
estimates of the social benefits of reductions in GHG emissions.

At the time of this notice, the most recent interagency estimates of the potential global benefits resulting from reduced CO 2 emissions in 2010, expressed in 2010$, were $4.9, $22.3, $36.5, and $67.6 per metric ton avoided . For emissions 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
domesti c effects, although DOE will give preference to consideration of the global benefits of reducing CO 2 emissions. To calculate a present value of the stream of monetary values, DOE will discount the values in each of the four cases using the discount rates t hat had been used to
obtain the SCC values in each case.

DOE recognizes that scientific and economic knowledge continues to evolve rapidly as to the
contribution of CO 2 and other GHG to changes in the future global climate and the potential resulting dama ges to the world economy. Thus, these values are subject to change.

DOE also intends to estimate the potential monetary benefit of reduced NO X emissions resulting
from the standard levels it considers. For NO X emissions, available estimates suggest a ver y wide range of monetary values for NO X emissions, ranging from $450 to $4,623 per ton in 2010$. 14 In
accordance with OM B guidance, DOE will conduct 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. 15

DOE does not plan to monetize estimates of Hg in this rulemaking. DOE is aware of multiple agency efforts to determine the appropriate range of values used in evaluati ng 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.

14 F or 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 , Washington, DC

. 15 OMB, Circular A

- 4: Regulatory Analysis ( Sept. 17, 2003).45

17. REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS

As part of the NOPR sta ge of this rulemaking, DOE will prepare a regulatory impact analysis that addresses the potential for non

- regulatory approaches to supplant or augment energy conservation standards to improve the efficiency of commercial clothes washers. DOE recognizes tha t voluntary or other non

- regulatory efforts by manufacturers, utilities, and other interested parties can result in substantial efficiency improvements. DOE intends to analyze the likely effects of non

- regulatory initiatives on equipment energy use, consum er utility, and LCCs. DOE will attempt to base its assessment on the actual impacts of any such initiatives to date, but also will consider information on the impacts that an existing initiative might have in the future.

If DOE proposes energy conservation standards for commercial clothes washers and the NOPR constitutes a significant regulatory action, DOE would submit to OMB ’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs the assessment of costs and benefits required unde r section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993).4647

APPENDIX A

– SUMMARY OF ITEMS FOR COMMENT FROM INTERESTED PARTIES

DOE requests comments from interested parties on the following issues:

Item 1

- 1 DOE invites comment on developing correction factors for translating

Appendix J1 MEF/WF values into Appendix J2 MEF/WF values that would apply beginning March 7, 2015, at which time manufacturers will be required

to use the Appendix J2 test procedure. DOE also welcomes any data on the appropriate correction factors.

................................ ................................ ................... 12

Item 1

- 2 DOE invites comment on whether to establish new energy efficiency

standards for commercial clothes washers based on the IMEF metric, which would incorporate standby and off mode power.

................................ ...................... 12

Item 1

- 3 DOE invites comment on its whether to establish new water efficiency

standards based on the IWF metric, which would incorporate water consumption from all the temperature cycles included as part of the energy test cycle in Appendix J2.

................................ ................................ .......................... 13

Item 1

- 4 DOE invites comment on its proposed schedule for this rulemaking.

...................... 15

Item 3

- 1 DOE reques ts information that would contribute to the market assessment for

the commercial clothes washers covered in this rulemaking (e.g., current product features and efficiencies, product feature and efficiency trends, and historical product shipments and prices ).

................................ ................................ .. 18

Item 3

- 2 DOE seeks comment on its proposal to retain two product classes for

commercial clothes washers based on the location of access (i.e., top

- loading
and front

- loading).

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 19

Item 3

- 3 DOE seeks comment on whether any of the technologies listed in Table 3.1

should be removed from consideration, or whether any othe r technologies not listed in Table 3.1 should be considered as technology options.

............................... 20

Item 4

- 1 DOE seeks comment on whether any of the technologies listed in Table 3.1

should be removed from consideration based on any of the screening criteria listed above. If so, please provide details regarding the specific screening criteria that would preclude DOE from considering such technology options.

......... 21

Item 5

- 1 DOE seeks input from interested parties on whether the amended energy

efficiency standard levels effective January 8, 2013 are appropriate for characterizing the baseline eff iciency levels for this rulemaking.

............................. 22

Item 5

- 2 DOE seeks input on whether any higher efficiency levels should be

considered for top

- loading commercial clothes wa shers, and if so, the basis
for such consideration.

................................ ................................ ............................... 23

Item 5

- 3 DOE seeks input on the appropriateness of the higher efficiency levels

identified for front

- loadin g commercial clothes washers.

................................ ......... 2348

Item 5

- 4 DOE seeks input on appropriate maximum technologically feasible efficiency

levels and the basis for why those levels should be selected.

................................ .... 23

Item 5

- 5 DOE requests feedback on the use of an efficiency

- level approach to

determine the relationship between manufacturer cost and energy efficiency for commercial clothes washers, supplemented, as need ed, by a design

- option approach.

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 24

Item 5

- 6 Are there proprietary designs or technologies for commercial clothes washers

of which DOE should be aware in this rule making? If so, what are these designs or technologies and how should DOE acquire the cost data necessary for evaluating them?

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 25

Item 5

- 7 DOE seeks comment on whe ther any new standards may impact the utility of

commercial clothes washers. If such impacts exist, can the effects be quantified? If so, how?

................................ ................................ .............................. 25

Item 6

- 1 DOE seek s stakeholder input on the approaches considered for specifying the

typical annual energy and water consumption. Most importantly, DOE is interested in new sources of data that can assist in characterizing the cycles per year for commercial clothes washers . Drafts of the data request sheets are contained in Appendix A.

................................ ................................ .......................... 26

Item 7

- 1 DOE welcomes comments on whether the distribution channels described

above are the same.

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 28

Item 7

- 2 DOE seeks input on data sources for establishing the mark

- ups.

.............................. 28

Item 8

- 1 DOE seeks input on the extent to which purchasers of CCWs are able to

either pass on the higher purchase costs of more efficient CCWs, or otherwise
recover those costs.

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 29

Item 8

- 2 DOE seeks stakeholder input on the planned approach for estimating current

and forecasted energy, water, and wastewater prices.

................................ ............... 30

Item 8

- 3 DOE seeks stakeholder input on whether it is correct to assume that changes

in maintenance, repair, and installation costs will be negligible for more
efficient commercial clothes washer s. If it is incorrect, DOE is interested in the reasons why this is so and specific ways to correct this assumption.

.................. 31

Item 8

- 4 DOE seeks stakeholder input on appropriate lifetimes for the commercial

clothes washer classes covered in this rulemaking.

................................ ................... 31

Item 8

- 5 DOE seeks stakeholder input on the planned approach for es timating discount

rates for commercial customers.

................................ ................................ ................ 31

Item 8

- 6 DOE requests data from stakeholders to characterize the current mix of

commercial clothes washer eff iciencies in the market, as well as expected trends in the next five years.

................................ ................................ ...................... 32

Item 9

- 1 DOE seeks historical shipments data broken down by product class.

....................... 33

Item 9

- 2 DOE seeks input on whether conversions from apartments to

condos/townhouses are still occurring.

................................ ................................ ...... 3349

Item 9

- 3 DOE requests input from manufacturers and other stakeholders on historical

shipments by efficiency, historical prices of CCW for specific product categories.

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 34

Item 9

- 4 DOE seeks input from manufacturers and other stakeholders on the potential

impact of amended CCW energy conservation standards on equipment shipments, and whether the elasticities de veloped for RCW would be appropriate for CCW.

................................ ................................ ................................ 34

Item 10

- 1 DOE seeks historical SWEF data by product class. DOE also seeks historical

market share data showing th e percentage of equipment shipments by efficiency level for as many product classes as possible.

................................ .......... 36

Item 11

- 1 DOE requests input on any customer subgroups it shoul d consider when

analyzing standards for commercial clothes washers.

................................ ............... 37

Item 12

- 1 DOE seeks comment on appropriate manufacturer subgroups for commercial

clothes wa shers that DOE should consider in a manufacturer subgroup analysis.

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 39

Item 12

- 2 What regulations or pending regulations should DOE consider in its

examination of cumulative regulatory burden?

................................ ......................... 40

Item 13

- 1 DOE seeks input from stakeholders regarding its plan to use NEMS

- BT to

conduct the utility impact analysis. Is the NEMS

- BT model appropriate for assessing utility impacts of energy conservation standards? If not, why? What would be a more appropriate model for DOE to use?

................................ ............... 40

Item 14

- 1 DOE welcomes feedback on its approach to assessing national employment

impacts.

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 41