# gtA Department of Energy E "n'^ J~~ S 

## ~Washington, DC 20585


## June 12, 1995

Vince Anderson Director, Environmental Programs Whirlpool Corporation 5401 U.S. Highway 41 North Evansville, IN 47727-0001 Mr. Anderson: This letter confirms the Department of Energy's site visit to your company in St. Joseph, Michigan on June 19, 1995 at 11:00 a.m.. The Department has completed the initial analyses of the AHAM submitted data, which are enclosed for your review. The Department looks forward to discussing the elements of the enclosed analyses, and hopes to obtain additional data during the visit. For further information please contact Mr. P.Marc. LaFrance of my staff at (202) 586-8423. Sincerely,

Xk?- 

## Michael J. McCabe, Director Office of Codes and Standards 

## Office of Building Technologies Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Enclosures
cc: 

## Freedom of Information Reading Room Docket Number EE-RM-94-403 U.S. Department of Energy

Printed with soy ink on recycled paper 

# Vince Anderson 

# Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 

# June 12, 1995 '

Director, Environmental Programs Whirlpool Corporation 5401 U.S. Highway 41 North Evansville, IN 47727-0001 Mr. Anderson:

-- 

# This letter confirms the Department of Energy's 'site visit to your company in St. Joseph, Michigan on June 19, 1995 at 11:00 a.m., The Department has completed 'the initial analyses of the AHAM submitted data, which are enclosed for your review. The Department looks- forward to discussing the elements of the enclosed analyses, and hopes to obtain additional data during the visit. For further information please contact Mr.**P~** 

# Marc. LaFrance of my staff at (202) 586-8423.

Enclosures cc: Sincerely,

# ~V~ In-

# ~~ael,{**~ccabe.** Oirector**~-** 

# - Office 6f Codes and Standards Office of Building Technologies Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Freedom of Information Reading Room Docket**Numb~r** 

# EE-RM-94-403 U.S. Department of Energy 

# *

Print,ed with soy ink on recycled paper

# Department of Energy v('§.( 

### ~ ¥I/~ ^Washington, DC 20585 

## June 12, 1995



## Earl F. Jones, Jr. Sr. Counsel, Government and Industry GE Appliances Appliance Pank 2-225 Louisville, KY 40225 Mr. Jones: This letter confirms the Department of Energy's site visit to your company in Louisville, Kentucky on June 27, 1995 at 9:00 a.m. The Department has completed the initial analyses of the AHAM submitted data, which are enclosed for your review. The Department looks forward to discussing the elements of the enclosed analyses, and hopes to obtain additional data during the visit. For further information please contact Mr. P. Marc LaFrance of my staff at (202) 586-8423. Sincerely,

(f/Michae 

## J. McCabe, Director / Office of Codes and Standards Office of Building Technologies Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Enclosures
cc: 

## Freedom of Information Reading Room Docket Number EE-RM-94-403 U.S. Department of Energy



# ® Printed with soy ink on recycled paper 

# Earl F. Jones, Jr. 

# Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 

# June 12, 1995

Sr. Counsel, Government and Industry GE Appliances Appliance Pank 2-225 Louisville, KY 40225 Mr. Jones: This letter confirms the Department of Energy's site visit to your company in Louisville, Kentucky on June 27, 1995 at 9:00 a.m. The Department has completed the initial analyses of the AHAM submitted data, which are enclosed for your review. The Department looks forward to discussing the elements of the enclosed analyses, and hopes to obtain additional data during the visit. For further information please contact Mr. P. Marc LaFrance of my staff at (202) 586-8423.

Enclosures cc: Sincerely,

# ~(7~. ,**Lrk~~~e~.** McCabe, Dir'ector

# ~ Office of Codes and Standards Office of Building Technologies Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Freedom of Information Reading Room Docket Number EE-RM-94-403 U.S. Department of Energy

. 

### -... 

# ® Printed with soy ink on recycled paper /

# Aind^,% Department of Energy v(=-(I~~ 

## T^ JSWashington, DC 20585

June 12, 1995



## Phil J. Manthei Speed Queen Company Shephard Street P.O. Box 990 Ripon, WI 57971-0990 Mr. Manthei: This letter confirms the Department of Energy's site visit to your company in Ripon, Wisconsin on June 20, 1995 at 10:00 a.m. The Department has completed the initial analyses of the AHAM submitted,data, which are enclosed for your review. The Department looks forward to discussing the elements of the enclosed analyses, and hopes to obtain additional data during the visit. For further information please contact Mr. P. Marc LaFrance of my staff at (202) 586-8423. 

## Sincerely,



# ichae J.McCabe, Director Office of Codes and Standards Office of Building Technologies Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Enclosures
cc: Freedom of Information Reading Room Docket Number EE-RM-94-403 U.S. Department of Energy

Printe t nk on re d paer

t.Jm Pnnted with soy ink on recycled paper 

# -Phil J. Manthei Speed Queen Company Shephard Street P.O. Box 990 Ripon, WI 57971-0990 Mr. Manthei: 

# Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 

# June 12, 1995

This letter confirms the Department of Energy's site visit to_ your company in Ripon, Wisconsin on June 20, 1995 at 10:00 a.m. The Department has completed the initial analyses of the AHAM submitted, data, which are enclosed -for your review. The Department looks forward to discussing the elements of the enclosed analyses, and hopes -to obtain additional data during the visit. For further-information please contact Mr. P. Marc LaFrance of my staff at (202) 586-8423.

- Enclosures

cc: Sincerely,

# ~~v~--**~~~e~.·** McCabe, Director

# c7~ Office of Codes and Standards Office of Building Technologies Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Freedom of Information Reading Room Docket Number EE-RM-94-403 U.S. Department of Energy

/-


# @ Printed with soy ink'on recycled paper

## AI^^^ ) 

# lDepartment of Energy [ hA lWashington, DC 20585
June 12, 1995

Douglass C. Horstman Vice President-Government Affairs Maytag 1310 G Street, N.W., Suite 720 Washington, DC 20005 Mr. Horstman: This letter confirms the Department of Energy's site visit to your company in Newton, Iowa on June 22, 1995 at 9:00 a.m. The Department has completed the initial analyses of the AHAM submitted data, which are enclosed for your review. The Department looks forward to discussing the elements of the enclosed analyses, and hopes to obtain additional data during the visit. For further information please contact Mr. P. Marc LaFrance of my staff at (202) 586-8423. Sincerely,

/1d Michae J. McCabe, Director Office of Codes and Standards Office of Building Technologies Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Enclosures
cc: 

## Freedom of Information Reading Room Docket Number EE-RM-94-403 U.S. Department of Energy

> P 'Pnnted with soy ink on recycled paper 

# Douglass 

# c.**Ho~stman** 

# Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 

# June 12, 1995

Vice President-Government Affairs Maytag 1310 GStreet, N.W., Suite 720 Washington, DC 20005 Mr. Horstman: This letter confirms the Department of Energy's site visit to your company in Newton, Iowa on June"22, 1995 at 9:00 a.m. The Department has completed the initial analyses of the AHAM submitted data, which are**~nclosed** 

# for your review. The Department looks forward to discussing the elements of the enclosed analyses, and hopes to obtain additional data during the visit. For further information please contact Mr. P. Marc LaFrance of my staff at (202) 586-8423.

Enclosures cc: Sincerely,

# fln-v~**-h~~~e~: M~cabe,**  Director 

# C;v Office of Codes and Standards Office of Building Technologies Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Freedom of Information Reading Room Docket Number EE-RM-94-403 U.S. Department of Energy·

. 

## "' 

# *

Printed with soy ink

# ~n recycled paper

# Ad, ^· aDepartment 

# of Energy 2(~~~~II~ 

## hA )Washington, DC 20585 

## June 12, 1995
Terry V. Thiele Associate General Counsel White Consolidated Industries, Inc. 11770 Berea Road Cleveland, OH 44111 Mr. Thiele: This letter confirms the Department of Energy's site visit to your company in Webster City, Iowa on June 28, 1995 at 10:00 a.m. The Department has completed the initial analyses of the AHAM submitted data, which are enclosed for your review. The Department looks forward to discussing the elements of the enclosed analyses, and hopes to obtain additional data during the visit. For further information please contact Mr. P.Marc LaFrance of my staff at (202) 586-8423. Sincerely,

'r

Michael J. McCabe, Director '-' 

## Office of Codes and Standards 

## Office of Building Technologies Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Enclosures
cc: 

## Freedom of Information Reading Room Docket Number EE-RM-94-403 U.S. Department of Energy

Printed with soy ink on recycled paper 

# Terry V. Thiele Associate General Counsel 

# Department of Energy Washington,' DC 20585 

# June 12, 1995

White Consolidated Industries, Inc. 11770 Berea Road ·Cleveland, OH 44111 Mr. Thiele: Thi s 1 

# etter .confi nns the Department of Energy ISS

# ite vi sit to your company in Webster City, Iowa on June 28, 1995 at 10:00 a.m. The Department has completed the initial analyses,of the AHAM submitted data, which are enclosed for your review. The Department looks forward to discussing the elements of the enclosed analyses, and hopes to obtain additional data during the visit.
. For further information please contact Mr. P., 

# 'Marc LaFrance of my staff at (202) 586-8423.

Enclosures cc:

# ~y.~ ,l.rMichael J. McCabe, Director

# ~- Office of Codes and, Standards Office of Building Technologies Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Freedom of Information Reading Room Docket Number EE-RM-94-403 

# U.S. Department of Energy

...... 

# *

Printed with soy ink on recycled paper

# InitialAnalyses ofAHAM Submitted Standard Clothes Washer Data
Data was provided by AHAM based on two test procedures: the existing DOE testprocedure and the proposed AHAM (version 6) test procedure. Neither ofthese test procedures account for the additional energy required to dry the clothes after a spin cycle. LBL analyzed data both with and without dryer energy included. The data was analyzed andpresented four ways: 

# * Existing DOE Test Procedure, with EF,416 cycles/yr * Existing DOE Test Procedure,with MEF from DOE proposed test procedure, 416 cycles/yr 

# * AHAM proposed test procedure version 6, withEF, 392 cycles/yr * AHAM proposed test procedure,with modified DOE MEF, 392cycles/yr Several calculated values inthe analyses require further explanation: 1)Energy Factor --EF The calculation ofEF is defined the same for DOE and AHAM testprocedures: EF= ClothesContainerVolume + 

## (Hot WaterEnergy + MechanicalEnergy) 2) Modified Energy Factor -- MEF 

## MEF (from the Proposed DOE Test Procedure) differs from EF in that the energy needed to dry clothes, after a spin cycle, is added to the total energy use. This "dryer energy" was calculated differently for the DOE and AHAM based test procedures. Both EF and MEF are given in units ofcubic feet per kWhper cycle. MEF= Clothes ContainerVolume - (Hot WaterEnergy + MechanicalEnergy + Dryer Energy) 3) Moisture Removal (Dryer)Energy -- H, AHAM submitted shipment weighted average data showing thebaseline washer had a Remaining Moisture Content (RMC) of62%. This means that the weight ofa wet test load weighed 62% more than abone dry testload, (1.62 x dry test load). Proposed DOE Test Procedure H,=(W2 

## - WI)

## xDf. Where: W 2 

## = moisture in clothes after spin cycle, lbs/cycle, (varies with RMC) W, = bone dry test load = (7 lbs x 0.72) + (3 lbs x0.28) = 5.88 lbs/cycle Def = 0.5 kWh/lb ofmoisture (energy required to remove moisture) 

# InitialAnalyses ofAHAMSubmittedStandardClothes WasherData

Data was providedby AHAM based on two test procedures: the existing DOE test procedure and the proposed AHAM (version 6) test procedure. Neitherofthesetest procedures account for the additional energy required to dry the clothes after a spin cycle. LBL analyzed databoth with and without dryerenergy included. The data was analyzed and presented four ways:
, 

# • ExistingDOETestProcedure, with EF,416cycles/yr 

# • ExistingDOETestProcedure,with MEF from DOEproposedtest procedure, 416 cycles/yr 

# • AHAM proposedtestprocedureversion 6, 

# withEF, 392 cycles/yr 

# • AHAM proposedtestprocedure,with modified·DOEMEF, 392cydes/yr Severalcalculatedvalues in the analyses require further explanation: 

# 1) Energy Factor

-- EF The calculation ofEFis defined the same for DOE and AHAMtestprocedures: EF

# =Clothes Container Volume 

# + (Hot WaterEnergy 

# +Mechanical Energy) 

# 2) Modified EnergyFactor

-- MEF MEF (from the Proposed DOETestProcedure) differs from EFin that the**en~rgy** 

## needed to dry clothes, after a spin cycle, is added to the total energy use. This "dryerenergy" was calculateddifferently for the DOE and AHAMbased test procedures. BothEFand MEF are given in units ofcubic feet perkWhpercycle. MEF 

## = Clothes Container Volume 

# + (Hot Water Energy 

# +Mechanical Energy 

# + Dryer Energy) 

# 3) MoistureRemoval (Dryer) Energy

-- Hv
. AHAM &ubmitted shipment weighted average data showing the baseline washerhad a Remaining Moisture Content (RMC) of62%. This means that the weight ofa wet testload weighed 62% more than a bone dry test load, (1.62 x dry test load). Proposed DOE Test Procedure

Where,;

.- ;



## ,. W 2 

## WI 

## De/ = moisture in clothes after spin cycle,lbslcycle, (varies wi'th RMC) 

## =bone dry.test load

## = (7 lbs x0.72) 

# + (3 lbs x0.28) 

## = 5.88 lbs/cycle 

# =

0.5 kWhIlb ofmoisture (energyrequired to remove moisture)

1

## For Example: W 2 62%RMC 

### = 

## 1.62x 5.88Ibs/cycle =9.53 Ibs/cyclebaseline moist load W250oMC 

## = 

## 1.50x5.88 Ibs/cycle = 8.82Ibs/cycle


## AHAM Proposed Rule Modified to Include Moisture Removal (Dryer) Energy The dryer energy was similarly defined for the AHAM w/ RMC case. Thebaseline RMC is still 62%, but the final dry testload has aresidual RMC of4% instead ofbone dry. In addition several other factors have been added: 1)Dryer UtilizationFactor(DUF):the ratio ofdryer cycles to clothes washer cycles per year. 2) Maximum ClothesLoad: the maximum clothes load for a given size clothes washer. For a 2.9 to 3.0 cubic foot washer the maximum load is 12.1 Ibs (AHAM Proposed Test Procedure). In the proposed test procedure the load size varies with drum capacity but for this analysis the load size was kept constant. 3) AverageLoadFraction: the P&G average load to maximum load fraction and is 0.52. The modified DOEmoisture removal energy is:, Hv= (W

- W,)x De x 

## DDUF Where: W 2 

## = (RMC + 1)xLoad,Ibs/cycle W, = (RMCrsdA + 1)x Load,lbs/cycle, (at RMC,sidI =4%) Def 

## = 0.5 kWh/lb ofmoisture (energy required to remove moisture) DUF = 0.80 

## Load =Maximum ClothesLoadxAverageLoad Fraction = 12.1 lbs/cycle x 0.52 = 6.29 Ibs For Example: W 2 62%RMC 

## = (0.62 + 1) x 6.29 lbs/cycle = 10.19 Ibs/cycle W,4%RMc 

## = (0.04 + 

## 1) x 6.29 

## lbs/cycle = 6.54 Ibs/cycle



## 2 ForExample: W 2•

62%RMC 

## = 1.62

## x 5.881bs!cycle 

## = 9.53 

## Ibs!cycle 

## baseline moistload W

2•

50%RMC 

## = 

## 1.50x 5.881bs!cycle =,8.82 

## Ibs!cycle '


## AHAM Proposed Rule Modified to Include Moisture Remoyal (Dryer) Energy The dryerenergy was similarly definedfor the AHAMwI RMC case. ThebaselineRMC is still 62%; butthe final dry

## test load has

# aresidual RMC of4% instead ofbone dry. 

## In**add~tion** 

## several other factors have been added: 1) Dryer Utilization Factor (DUF): 

## the ratio ofdryercycles to clothes washercycles peryear. '2) 

## Maximum Clothes Load: 

## the maximumclothes load for a given size clothes washer. Fora 2.9 to 3.0cubic footwasherthe maximumload is 12.11bs (AHAM ProposedTestProcedure). In the proposedtestprocedurethe load size varies wilh drumcapacity butforthis analysis the load size was kept constant. 3) 

## AverageLoadFraction: 

## the P&G average load to maximum load fraction and is 0.52. ThemodifiedDOEmoisture removalenergy is: ,

Where:

ForExample: W 2•

62%RMC W],4%RMC



### ...... 

## = (RMC 

# + 1) xLoad, 

## lbs/cycle 

# =(RMCresidual 

# + 1) 

## x Load, 

## lbs/cycle, (at RMCresidual

# = 4%) 

# =

0.5 kWhIlb ofmoisture (energy required to remove moisture) 

## = 0.80 

# =

Maximum ClothesLoadxAverageLoadFraction 

## = 12.1Ibs/cyclex 0.52 

# =

6.291bs 

# =(0.62 

# + 1) x 6.29 lbs/cycle

# =10.19 lbs/cycle = 

## (0.04 

# + 1) x 6.29 lbs/cycle 

## = 6.54 lbs/cycle

2

## Standard Clothes Washer Existing DOE Test Procedure (1) Dryer Energy Unaccounted For 416 cycles/year Markup 2.0 Design Design Option Increm. Total Retail Energy Use

- ExistingTestProcedure Electric Gas Combined Level (4)15)(6) per unit Mfg. Cost Hot Machine Total Clothes Energy Water Use Per Cycle (9) Payback Payback Elect.&Gas mfg. costs Cost (2) Water Energy Energy Container Factor Total Gallons per Cumm. Cumm. Payback

$ (8) $ $ kWh/cycle kWh/cycle kWh/cycle cu. ft. cu.ftAWh/cycli Gallons cu. ft. capacity years (3) years (3) years (3) 0 Baseline (Vert. Axis) (4) $192 $383 2.22 0.22 2.44 2.93 1.20 38.9 13.3 I 0+Tighter tub tolerance $7 $199 $397 2.04 0.22 2.26 2.93 1.30 36.0 12.3 1.5 2.6 2.0 2 1+Thermostatic Mixing Valve $8 $207 $414 1.86 0.22 2.08 2.93 1.41 36.0 12.3 2.1 4.0 2.8 3 2+Improved Fill Control $17 $224 $447 1.83 0.22 2.05 2.93 1.43 33.5 11.4 3.4 5.8 4.4
0 Baseline (Vert. Axis) $192 $383 2.22 0.22 2.44 2.93 1.20 38.9 13.4 4 Horizontal AxisDesign $101 $293 $586 0.71 0.22 0.94 2.77 2.96 26.1 9.4 3.2 6.2 4.4 5 Horz. Axis w/recirculation $3 $296 $592 0.52 0.26 0.78 2.74 3.52 21.8 8.0 2.9 5.4 3.9 6 5+Thermostatic Mixing Valve $8 $304 $608 0.47 0.26 0.73 2.74 3.74 21.8 8.0 3.0 5.7 4.1 0+Reduce Thermal Mass $48 $239 $479 2:17 0.22 2.41 2.94 1.22 38.9 13.6 59.8 162.9 91.8 0+Added Insulation $49 $240 $481 2.17 0.22 2.41 2.94 1.22 38.9 13.6 61.0 165.9 93.5 0+lncrease Motor Efficiency $10 $201 $402 2.22 0.20 2.42 2.93 1.21 3,8.9 13.4 30.3 30.3 30.3 0+Suds Saving $28 $219 $438 2.06 0.23 2.28 2.91 1.28 35.6 12.3 6.1 9.7 7.7 0+Direct Drive Motor $71 $262 $525 2.22 0.09 2.32 2.94 1.27 38.9 13.6 33.7 33.7 33.7 (1) Dataused was submitted by AHAM (2) Markup= 2.0 (3) Elect. (94$/kWh) = 0.0838 Gas (94$/MBTU) = 6.03 Water Cost($/1000 gal.) = 2.84 Water HeaterEfficiency: Elect. = 1.00; Gas =0.75 Fuel Price Multiplier: Elect. = 0.90; Gas = 1.01 Fraction Water Heaters: Elect. = 0.45; Gas =0.55 (4) Baseline data assumed to be for vertical axis machine (5) When options are combined, adjustments aremade toavoid double counting savings (6) Auto Fill Control and Advanced Sensor/Control maybe added when data is gathered onthese design options (7) No adjustments were made for the differences in vertical andhorizontal drumcapacity (8) Dollar values are shown in rounded dollars, actual values as provided by AHAM are used in allcalculations (9) Nodetergent savings are expected as water use isreduced 

### c:\clean3\clthwash\spdsht\wash I A 6/9/95 

# StandardClothesWasher ExistingDOETest Procedure(1) DryerEnergyUnaccouniedFor 416 cycles/year Markup 2.0
Design Design Option Increm. Total Retail Energy Use

- ExistingTestProcedure Ltvel

### (4')~5)(6) I 

# "

0 Baseline (Vert. Axis)(4) I 0+ Tightertub tolerance 2 1+ ThermostaticMixing Valve 3 2+lmprovedFill Control
O· Baseline (Vert. Axis) 4 HorizontalAxis Design 5 Horz. Axis w/recirculation 6 5+ ThermostaticMixing Valve ( O+ReduceThermal Mass

O+Added Insulation O+lncreaseMotorEfficiency O+Suds Saving
. O+DirectDrive Motor (I) Dataused was subminedby AHAM (2) Markup

## =2.0 (3) Elect. (94$/kWh)

## = 0.0838 Gas (94$/MBTU) = 6.03 WaterCost($/1000gal.)

## =2.84 perunit . Mfg. mfg. costs Cost

$ (8) $ $192 $7 $199 $8 $207 $17 $224
$192 $101 $293

$3 $296 $8 $304 $48 $239 $49 $240 $}O $201 $28 $219 $71 $262

WaterHeaterEfficiency: Elect.

## =1.00; Gas

## = 0.75 Fuel PriceMultiplier: Elect. = 0.90; Gas= 1.01 FractionWater Heaters: Elect. 

### =0.45;· Gas

### =0.55 (4) Baselinedataassumed to be for vertical axismachine Cost Hot (2) Water $ kWh/cycle $383
. 2.22 $397 2.04 $414 1.86 $447 1.83 $383 2.22 $586 0.71 $592 0.52 $608 0.47 $479 n7 $481 2.17 $402 2.22 $438 2.06 $525 2.22

(5) Whenoptions arecombined. adjustments aremade to avoid double counting savings Machine Total Energy Energy kWh/cycle kWh/cycle

0.22 2.44 0.22 2.26 0.22 2.08 0.22 2.05
0.22 2.44 0.22 0.94 0.26 0.78 0.26 0.73
0.22 2.41 0.22 2.41 0.20 2.42 0.23 2.28 0.09 2.32

(6) AutoFill Control and Advanced Sensor/Control may beadded when datais gathered on these design options (7) No adjustments weremade for the differences in vertical and horizontal drumcapacity (8) Dollarvaluesare shownin rounded dollars. actual values as provided by AHAM areused in all calculations (9) Nodetergent savings areexpected as water use is reduced Oothes Container

cu. ft. 2.93 2.93 2.93 2.93
2.93 2.77 2.74 2.74
2.94 2.94 2.93 2.91 2.94



### c:\c1ean3\c1thwash\spdsht\wash11A Electric Gas Combined Energy WaterUse PerCycle(9) Payback Payback Elect.&Gas Factor Total Gallonsper Cumm. Cumm. Payback cu.ft.JkWhlcycle Gallons cu. ft. capacity years (3) years (3) years (3) 

### 1.20 38.9 ·13.3 

### 1.30 36.0 12.3 

### 1.5 2.6 2.0 

### 1.41 36.0 12
..3 

### 2.1 4.0 2.8 

### 1.43· 33.5 11.4 

### 3.4 5.8 4.4


### 1.20 38.9 13.4 

### 2.96 26.1 9.4 

### 3.2 6.2 4.4 

### 3.52 21.8 8.0 

### 2.9 S.4 3.9 

### 3.74 21.8 8.0 

### 3.0 5.7 4.1
i.22 38.9 13.6 59.8 162.9 91.8 1.22 38.9 13.6 61.0 165.9 93.5 1.21 3\8.9 13..4 30.3 30.3 30.3 1.28 35.6 12.3 6.1 9.7 7.7 1.27 38.9 13.6 33.7 33.7 33.7



### 6/9/95

## Existing DOE Test Procedure Dryer Energy Unaccounted For

Design Design Option Hot WaterEnergy Machine Water Total Total 

### Life Cycle Cost -- 

### EF(1) Level Electric Gas Energy Use Electric Gas Electric Gas : $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr Diccount Rate Discount Rate 2% 6% 15% 2% 6% 15% 0 Baseline(Vert. Axis) (4) $70 $26 $7 $46 $123 $79 $1,877 $1,528 $1,087 $1,340 $1,116 $834 I 0+Tighter tub tolerance $64 $23 $7 $43 $113 $73 $1,779 $1,456 $1,048 $1,286 $1,079 $816 2 I+Themiostatic Mixing Valve $58 $21 $7 $43 $108 $71 $1,728 $1,421 $1,033 $1,278 $1,076 $821 3 2+Improved Fill Control $57 $21 $7 $40 $104 $68 $1,713 $1,417 $1,043 $1,270 $1,078 $835
0 Baseline (Vert. Axis) $70 $26 $7 $46 $123 $79 $1,877 $1,528 $1,087 $1,340 $1,116 $834 4 Horizontal Axis Design $22 $8 $7 $31 $60 $46 $1,318 $1,147 $931 $1,146 $1,015 $849 5 Horz. Axis w/recirculation $16 $6 $8 $26 $50 $40 $1,202 $1,060 $879 $1,077 $964 $821 6 5+Thermostatic Mixing Valve $15 $5 $8 $26 $49 $39 $1,202 $1,063 $888 $1,087 $976 $834
O+ReduceThermal Mass ' $68 $25 $7 $46 $121 $78 $1,953 $1,609 $1,173 $1,428 $1,207 $926 0+Added Insulation $68 $25 $7 $46 $121 $78 $1,955 $1,611 $1,175 $1,430 $1,208 $928 0+Increase Motor Efficiency $70 $26 $6 $46 $122 $78, $1,888 $1,541 $1,102 $1,351 $1,129 $849 0+Suds Saving $64 $24 $7 $42 $114 $73 $1,822 $1,499 $1,090 $1,325 $1,118 $856 0+Direct Drive Motor $70 $26 $3 $46 $118 $74 $1.967 $1,631 $1,204 $1,430 $1,219 $951 (1) Clothes Washer Life = 14.1 years



### c:\clean3\clthwash\spdsht\washl IA 6/9/95 

# ExistingDOETestProcedure Dry€i' Eii€i'gy

# Unaccounied For

Design Design Option HotWaterEnergy Level 

# .... " Electric Gas ) : $/yr $Iyr
0 Baseline (Ven. Axis) (4) $70 $26 I 0+ Tightertub tolerance $64 $23 2 1+ThemlOstatic Mixing Valve $58 $21 3 2+Improved Fill Control $57 $21
0 Baseline(Vert. Axis) $70 $26 4 Horizontal Axis Design $22 $S 5 Horz. Axis w/recirculation $16 $6 6 5+ Thermostatic Mixing Valve $15 $5 ( O+ReduceThermal Mass $6S, $25 O+Added Insulation $68 $25 O+lncrease MotorEfficiency $70 $26 O+Suds Saving $64 $24 O+Direct Drive Motor $70 $26 (I) Clothes WasherLife

## =14,1 years Machine Water Energy 

### Use

$Iyr $Iyr $7 $46 $7 $43 $7 $43 $7 . $40
$7 $46 $7 $31 $8 $26 $8 $26 $7 $46 $7 $46 $6 $46 $7 $42' $3 $46 Total ·Total 

## Life Cycle Cost

-- EF (1) Electric Gas Electric Gas

$Iyr $Iyr Diccount Rate Discount Rate 2% 6% 15% 2% 6% 15% $123 $79 $1.877 $1,528 $1.087 $1.340 $1.116 $834 $113 $73 $1.779 $1,456 $1.048 $1.286 $1.079 $816 $108 $71 $1.728 $1,421 $1.033 $1.278 $1.076 $S21 $104 $68 $1.713 $1,417
. $1.043 $1.270 $1.078 $835 $123 $79 $1.877 $1,528 $1.087 $1.340 $1.116 $834 $60 $46 $1.3IS $1,147 $931 $1.146 $1.015 $849 $50 $40 $1.202 $1,060 $879 $1.077 $964 $821 $49 $39 $1.202 $1,063 $888 $1.087 $976 $834 $121 $78 $1.953 $1.609 $1.173 $1,428 $1.207 $926 $121 $78 $1.955 $1.611 $1.175 $1,430 $1.208 $928 $122 $78, $1.888 $1.541 $1.102 $1.351 

### i $1.129 $849 $114 $73 $1.822 $1.499 $1.090 $1.325 $1.118 $856 $1l8 $74 $1.967 $1.631 $1.204 $1.430 $1.219 $951



### c:\c1ean3\c1thwash\spdsht\washllA 6/9/95

## StandardClothes Washer -- DOE Test Procedure--EF $1,900 $1,800 $1,700 $1,600
5 $1,500 0 .0% 

### 2 3 

## -0-2%

--0-6% * $1,300 6-- 15% 

## 3 $1,200 $1,100 $1,100-

- 4


### . $1,000

-



## $900 $800 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 

## Energy Factor c:\clean3\clthwash\spdsht\wash 11 a 

## $1,900 $1,800 $1,700 $1,600
.

,-. 

## $1,500**~** 

# ...,. Q\ Q\ .-4 '-' 

## $1,400 

# ... til Q 

### U Q,I 

### Cl 

## $1,300**~** 

### U' 

## •**~** 

# ;::s $1,200 $1,100 $1,000

$900 $800 1.0 ·'

## . 

# ..

0



## 1.5 

## Standard Clothes Washer -- DOE Test Procedure--EF

2.0 

## 2.5 Energy Factor c:\c1ean3\c1thwash\spdsht\wash

### II a 

### 3.0 

## 5 6

3.5 4.0**~2%** 

## -0--6% -A-15%

## Clothes Washer -- Standard Existing DOE TestProcedure with RMC Added (1) 416 cycles/yr Markun 2 Design Design Option Increm. Total Retail Energy Use --ExistingTest Procedure Hv Total MEF Water Use Electric Gas Combine< Level (4)(5)(6)(8) per unit Mfg. Cost Hot Machine Total Clothes EnergyFactor ref.=62% Energy cu. ft.per Per Cycle (13) Payback Payback Elect.&Gz, mfg.costs Cost (2) Water Energy Energy Container cu. ft. per 

### RMC with 

### ME kWh/cycle Total Gallons per Cumm. Cumin. Payback _$ (12) $ (12) $ (12) kWh/cycle kWh/cycle kWh/cycle cu. ft. kWh/cycle (7) kWh/cycle (7) Gallons cu. ft. cap. years (3) years (3) years (3) 0 Baseline (Vert. Axis) $192 $383 2.22 0.22 2.44 2.93 1.20 1.82 4.27 0.69 38.9 13.3 1 0+Tighter tub tolerance $7 $199 $397 2.04
. 0.22 2.26 2.93 1.30 1.82 4.08 0.72 36.0 12.3 1.5 2.6 2.0 2 I+RMC=50% $10 $208 $416 2.04 0.23 2.26 2.93 1.29 1.47 3.73 0.78 36.0 12.3 1.7 2.0 1.8 3 I+RMC =40% $9 $217 $433 2.04 0.24 2.27 2.93 1.29 1.18 3.45 0.85 36.0 12.3 1.7 2.0 1.9 4 3+Thermostatic Mixing Valve $8 $225 $450 1.86 0.24 2.10
. 2.93 1.40 1.18 3.27 0.89 36.0 12.3 1.9 2.4 2.2 5 4+RMC=35%. $22 $247 $494 1.86 0.25 2.11 2.93 1.39 1.03 3.14 0.93 36.0 12.3 2.8 3.5 3.2 6 4+RMC=30% $4 $251 $502 1.86 0.28 2.14 2.93 1.37 0.88 3.02 0.97 36.0 12.3 2.8 3.4 3.1 7 6+lmproved Fill Control $17 $268 $536 1.83 0.28 2.11 2.93 1.39 0.88 2.99 0.98 33.5 11.4 3.3 3.9 3.6
0 Baseline (Vert. Axis) $192 $383 2.22 0.22 2.44 2.93 1.20 1.82 4.27 0.69 38.9 13.3 8 Horizontal Axis Design $101 $293 $586 0.71 0.22 0.94 2.77 2.96 1.82 2.76 1.00 26.1 9.4 3.2 6.2 4.4 9 Horz. Axis w/recirculation $3 $296 $592 0.52 0.26 0.78 2.74 3.52 1.82 2.60 1.05 21.8 8.0 2.9 5.4 3.9 10 9+RMC = 50% $10 $306 $611 0.52 0.27 0.78 2.74 3.50 1.47 2.25 1.21 21.8 8.0 2.7 4.6 3.5 11 9+RMC=40% $9 $314 $628 0.52 0.27

- 0.79 2.74 3.46 1.18 1.97 1.39 21.8 8.0 2.7 4.2 3.3 12 1 i+Thermostatic Mixing Valve $8 $322 $645 0.47 0.27 0.75 2.74 3.67 1.18 1.92! 1.42 21.8 8.0 2.8 4.4 3.5 13 12+RMC = 35% $22 $344 $689 0.47 0.29 0.76. 2.74 -3.59 1.03 1.79 1.53 2i.8 8.0 3.1 4.8 3.9 14 12+RMC = 30% ' $4 $349 $697 0.47 0.32 0.79 2.74 3.46 0.88 1.67 1.63 21.8 8.0 3.1 4.7 3.8 0+Reduce Thermal Mass $48 $239 $479 2.17 0.22 2.41 2.94 1.22 1.82 4.21 0.70 38.9 13.6 59.8 162.9 91.8 0+Added Insulation $49. $240 $481 2.17 0,22 2.41 2.94 1.22 1.82 4.21 0.70 38.9 13.6 61.0 165.9 93.5 0+Increase Motor Efficiency $10 $201 $402 2.22 0.20 2.42 2.93 1.21 1.82 4.25 0.69 38.9 13.4 30.3 30.3 30.3 0+Suds Saving (9) $28 $219 $438 2.06 0.23 2.28 2.91 1.28 1.82 4.10 0.71 35.6 12.3 6.1 9.7 7.7 0+Direct DriveMotor $71 $262 $525 2.22 0.09 2.32 2.94 1.27
. 1.82 4.13 0.71 38.9 13.6 33.7 33.7 33.7 (1) Data used was submitted by AHAM (5) When options are combined, adjustments are made to avoid doublecounting savings (2) Markup =2.0 (6) The same RMC data was used for vertical and horizontal axis machines (3) Elect. (94$/kWh) = 0.0838 (7) Based on a baseline RMC of62% and DOE proposed testprocedure Gas (94$/MBTU) = 6.03 (8) Some design options were notcombined with others due to highpayback Water Cost($/1000 gal.) = 2.84 (9) Sud Savings omitted because oflimited application; also requires a separate wash tub Water Heater Efficiency: Elect. = 1.00; Gas = 0.75 (10) AutoFillControl and Advanced Sensor/Control maybe added when data is gathered on these design options Fuel Price Multiplier: Elect. =0.90; Gas = 1.01 (II) Noadjustments were made for the differences in vertical and horizontal drum capacity Fraction Water Heaters: Elect. = 0.45; Gas = 0.55 (12) Dollar values are shown in rounded dollars, actual values asprovided by AHAM are used in all calculations (4) Baseline data assumed tobe for vertical axis machine (13) Nodetergent savings are expected as water use is reduced


### c:\clean3\clthwash\spdsht\washlIB 6/9/95 

# ClothesWasher

-- Standard ExistingDOETestProcedure withRMCAdded (1) 416 

# cycles/yr Markup2
Design Design Option Increm. Total Retail Energy Use

-- ExistingTestProcedure Hv Total MEF WaterUse Electric Level (4)(5)(6)(8)

. '.

0 Baseline (Ven. Axis) I 0+ Tightertubtolerance 2 I+RMC = 50% 3 I+RMC=40% 4 3+ ThermostaticMixing Valve 5 4+RMC=35% 6 4+RMC=30% 7 6+lmproved Fill Control
0 Baseline (Ven. Axis) 8 Horizontal**Axi~** Design 9 Horz. Axis w/recirculation 10 9+RMC = 50% 11 9+RMC=40% 12 II+Thermostatic Mixing Valve 13 12+RMC=35% 14 12+RMC = 30%
. O+ReduceThermal Mass O+Added Insulation O+Increase Motor Efficiency O+Suds Saving (9) O+Direct Drive Motor (I) Dataused was submitted byAHAM (2) Markup= 2.0 (3) Elect. (94$1kWh) = 0.0838 Gas (94$IMBTU) = 6.03 WaterCost ($/1000 gal.) = 2.84 perunit Mfg. mfg. costs Cost

$ (12) $ (12) $192 $7 $199 $10 $208 $9 $217

. $8 $225 $22 $247 $4 $251 $17 $268 $192 $101 $293

$3 $296 $10 $306 " $9 $314 $8 $322 $22 $344' $4 $349 $48 $239 $49 $240 $\0 $201 $28 $219 $71 $262

Water!featerEfficiency: Elect. = 1.00; Gas = 0.75 Fuel**Pric~** Multiplier: Elect. = 0.90; Gas = 1.0I Fraction Water Heaters: Elect. = 0.45; Gas = 0.55 (4) Baseline dataassumed to be for vertical axis machine Cost Hot (2) Water $ (12) kWh/cycle $383 2.22 $397 2.04 $416 2.04 $433 2.04 $450 1.86 $494 1.86 $502 1.86 $536 1.83 $383 2.22 $586 0.71 $592 0.52 $611 0.52 $628 0.52 $645 0.47 $689 0.47 $697 0.47 $479 2.17 $481 2.17 $402 2.22 $438 2.06 $525 2.22 Machine Energy kWh/cycle

0.22 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.28 0.28
0.22 0.22 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.29 0.32 0.22 0,22 0.20 0.23 0.09 Total Dothes' Energy Factor ref.=62% Energy cu. ft. per PerCycle (13) Energy Container cu. ft. per 

## RMC**~ithMEI** kWh/cycle Total kWh/cycle cu. ft. kWh/cycle (7) kWh/cycle (7) Gallons

2.44 2.93 1.20 1.82 4.27 

### 0.69 38.9 2.26 2.93 1.30 1.82 4.,,08 

### 0.72 36.0 2.26 2.93 1.29 1.47 3.73 

### 0.78 36.0 2.27 2.93 1.29 1.18 3.45 

### 0.85 36.0 2.10 2.93 1.40 1.18 3.27 

### 0.89 36.0 2.ll 2.93 1.39 1.03 3.14 

### 0.93 36.0 2.14 2.93 1.37 0.88 3.02 

### 0.97 36.0 2.11 2.93 1.39 0.88 2.99 

### 0.98 33.5
2.44 2.93 1.20 1.82 4.27 

### 0.69 38.9 0.94 2.77 2.96 1.82 2.76 

### 1.00 26.1 0.78 2.74 3.52 Ui2 2.60 

### 1.05 21.8 0.78 2.74 3.50 1.47 2.25 

### 1.21 21.8 0.79 2.74 3.46 1.18 1.97 

### 1.39 21.8 0.75 2.74 3.67 1.18 l.92i 

### 1.42 21.8 0.76. 2.74 .3.59 1.03 1.79 

### 1.53 2i.8

. 0.79 2.74 3.46 0.88 1.67 

### 1.63 21.8 2.41 2.94 1.22 1.82 4.21 0.70 38.9 2.41 2.94 1.22 1.82 4.21 0.70 38.9 2.42 2.93
. 1.21 1.82 4.25 0.69 38.9 2.28 2.91 1.28 1.82 4.10 0.71 35.6 2.32 2.94 1.27 1.82 4.13 0.71 38.9 (5) When options are combined. adjustments are made to avoiddoublecountingsavings (6) Thesame RMC data was used for vertical and horizontal axis machines (7) Based on abaseline RMC of62% and DOEproposed test procedure (8) Somedesign options were notcombined with others due to high payback (9) Sud Savings omitted because oflimited application; also requires a separate wash tub Gallons per cu. ft. cap. 13.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 11.4
13.3 9.4 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 ' 8.0 8.0 13.6 13.6 13.4 12.3 13.6 Payback Cumm
. years (3)



### 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.9 2.8 2.8 3.3

3.2 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.8 3.1 3.1 59.8 61.0 30.3 6.1 33.7

(10) AutoFill Control and Advanced Sensor/Control may be added when datais gathered on these design options (II) No adjustments were made for the**diffe~nces** in venical and horizontal drum capacily (12) Dollar values are shown in rounded dollars, actual values as provided by AHAM are used in all calculations (13) No detergent savings are expected as wateruse is reduced


### c:\clean3\clthwash\spdsht\wash11B Gas Combine, Payback**Elect.&G~1** Cumm.**Paybac~** years (3) years (3)

2.6 2.0 2.0 1.8 2.0 1.9 2.4. 2.2 3.5 3.2 3.4 3.1 3.9 3.6

6.2 4.4 5.4 3.9 4.6 3.5 4.2 3.3 4.4 3.5 4.8 3.9 4.7 3.8 162.9 91.8 165.9 93.5 30.3 30.3 9.7 7.7· 33.7 33.7



### 6/9/95

## Existing DOE Test Procedure with RMC Added

Design Design Option Hot Water Energy Machine Water Elect. Total Total 

### Life Cycle Cost --RMC 

### IMEF Level Electric Gas Energy Use Dryer Electric Gas Electric Gas $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr yr yr $/yr $/yr Diccount Rate Discount Rate

_ ___________ _ '_
.

.______4
. ____2% 6% 15% 2% 6% 15% 0 Baseline (Vert. Axis) $70 $26 $7 $46 $57 $180 $136 $2,573 $2,062 $1,415 $2,036 $1,650 $1,162 I O+Tighter tub tolerance $64 $23 $7 $43 $57 $171 $130 $2,475 $1,990 $1,376 $1,983 $1,613 $1,144 2 I+RMC=50% $64 $23 $7 $43 $46 $160 $119 $2,362 $1,908 $1,333 $1,870 $1,530 $1,101 3 I+RMC=40% $64 $23 $7 $43 $37 $151 $110 $2,270 $1,841 $1,298 $1,777 $1,464 $1,066 4 3+Thermostatic Mixing Valve $58 $21 $7 $43 $37 $145 $108 $2,219 $1,806 $1,283 $1,769 $1,461 $1,071 5 4+RMC=35% $58 $21 $8 $43 $32 $141 $104 $2,211 $1,810 $1,302 $1,761 $1,465 $1,091 6 4+RMC= 30% $58 $21 $9 $43 $28 $137 $100 $2,174 $1,784 $1,290 $1,725 $1,439 $1,078 7 6+Improved Fill Control $57 $21 $9 $40 $28 $133 $97 $2,159 $1,780 $1,301 $1,717 $1,441 $1,092 $0 $0 $0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0 Baseline (Vert. Axis) $70 $26 $7 $46 $57 $180 $136 $2,573 $2,062 $1,415 $2,036 $1,650 $1,162 8 , HorizontalAxisDesign $22 $8 $7 $31 $57 $117 $103 $2,015 $1,681 $1,259 $1,842 $1,549 $1,178 9 Horz. Axis w/recirculation $16 $6 $8 $26 $57 $107 $97 $1,899 $1,594 $1,208 $1,774 $1,498 $1,149 10 9+RMC= 50% $16 $6 $8 $26 $46 $96 $86 $1,785 $1,511 $1,164 $1,661 $1,416 $1,106 II 9+RMC =40% $16 $6 $9 $26 $37 $87 $77 $1,693 $1,445 $1,130 $1,568 $1,349 $1,071 12 1+Thermostatic MixingValve $15 $5 $9 $26 $37 $86 $77 $1,693 $1,448 $1,138 $1,579 $1,361 $1,084 13 12+RMC= 35% $15 .$5 $9 $26 $32 $82 $73 $1,687 $1,454 $1,159 $1,573 $1,366 $1,105 14 12+RMC = 30% $15 $5 $10 $26 $28 $78 $69 $1,651 $1,428 $1,146 $1,536 $1,341 $1,093 O+Reduce Thermal Mass $68 $25 $7 $46 $57 $178 $135 $2,650 $2,143 $1,501 $2,125 $1,741 $1,254 O+Added Insulation $68 $25 $7 .$46 $57 $178 $135 $2,651 $2,145 $1,503 $2,127 $1,742 $1,256 0+lncrease Motor Efficiency $70 $26 $6 $46 $57 $179 $135 $2,585 $2,075 $1,430 $2,048 $1,663 $1,177 O+Suds Saving $64 $24 $7 $42 $57 $171 $130 $2,519 $2,033 $1,418 $2,022 $1,652 $1,184 O+Direct Drive Motor $70 $26 $3 $46 $57 $176 $132 $2,664 $2,165 $1,532 $2,127 $1,753 $1,279 (1) Clothes Washer Life = 14.1 years



### c:\clean3\clthwash\spdsht\wash 1 B 6/9/95 

# ExistingDOETest Procedure with RMCAdded

Design Design Option Hot WaterEnergy Machine Water Elect. Totil Total 

## Life Cycle Cost --RMC I

## MEF Level Electric Gas Energy 

### Use Dryer Electric GlI!l Electric Gas .'

## . $Iyr 

### $Iye $Iyr $Iyr $Iyr $Iyr $Iyr Diccount Rate Discount Rate



### ...

- 2% . 6% 15% 2% 6% 15% 0 Baseline (Vert. Axis) $70 $26 $7 $46 $57 $180 $136 $2,573 $2,062 $1,415 $2,036 $1,650 $1,162 I 0+ Tightertub tolerance $64 $23 $7 $43 $57 $171 $130 $2,475 $1,990 $1,376 $1.983 $1,613 $1,144 2 I+RMC=50% $64 $23 $7 $43 $46 $160 $119 $2,362 $1,908 $1,333 $1.870 $1,530 $1,101 3 I+RMC=40% $64 $23 $7 $43 $37 $151 $110 $2,270 $1,841 $1,298 $1,177 $1,464 $1,066 4 3+ThennostaticMixing Valve $58 $21 $7 $43 $37 $145 $\08 $2,219 $1,806 $1,283 $1,769 $1,461 $1.071 5 4+RMC= 35% $58 $21 $8 $43 $32 $141 $\04 $2,211 $1,810 $1,302 $1,761 $1,465 $1,091 ·6 4+RMC=30% $58 $21 $9- $43 $28 $137 $100 $2,174 $1,784 $1,290 $1,725 $1,439 $1,078

7 6+lmproved Fill Control $57 $21 $9 $40 $28 $133 $97 $2,159 $1,780 $1,301 $1,717 $1,441 $1,092 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 Baseline (Vert. Axis) $70 $26 $7 $46 $57 $180 $136 $2,573 $2,062 $1,415 $2,036 $1,650 $1,162 8 

### , Horizontal Axis Design $22 $8 $7 $31 $57 $117 $\03 $2,015 $1,681 $1,259 $1,842 $1,549 $1,178 9 Horz. Axis w/recirculation $16 $6 $8 $26 $57 $107 $97 $1,899 $1,594 $1,208 $1,774 $1,498 $1,149 10 9+RMC = 50% $16 $6 $8 $26 • $46 $96 $86 $1,785 $1,511 $1,164 $·1,661 $1,416 $1.106 11 9+RMC = 40% $16 $6 $9 $26 $37 $87 $71 $1,693 $1,445 $1,130 $1,568 $1,349 $1.071 12 II+Thennostatic Mixing Valve $15 $5 $9 $26 $37 $86 $77 $1,693 $1,448 $1,138 $1,579 $1,361 $1,084 13 12+RMC=35% $15 .$5 $9 $26 $32 $82 $73 $1,687 $1,454 $1,159 $1.573 $1,366 $1,105 14 12+RMC=30% $15 $5 $\0 '$26 $28 $78 $69 $1,651 $1,428 $1,146 $1,536 $1,341 $1,093 O+Reduce Thennal Mass $68 $25 $7 $46 $57 $178 $135 $2,650 $2,143 $1,501 $2,125 $1,741 $1,254 O+Added Insulation $68 $25 $7 .$46 $57 $178 $135 $2,651 $2,145 $1,503 $2,127 $1,742 $1,256 O+Increase MotorEfficiency $70 $26 $6 $46 $57 $179 $135 $2,585 $2,015 $1,430 $2,048 $1,663 $1.177 O+Suds Saving $64 $24 $7 $42 $57 $171 $130 $2,519 $2,033 $1,418 $2,022 $1,652 $1,184 O+Direct DriveMotor $70 $26 $3 $46 $57 $176 $132 $2,664 $2,165 $1,532 $2,127 $1,753 $1.279
(I) Clothes WasherLife = 14.1 years



### c:\c1ean3\c1thwash\spdsht\washIIB 

### 6/9/95

## StandardClothes Washer -- DOE TestProcedure -- MEF $2,600 ,i
$2,400
$2,200
$2,000

$1,600 8 

### \ 1

$1,400

- i 1 12 13 

### 14 $1,200t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

## ~ -- --22%

$1,200
$1,000 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Modified Energy Factor

c:\clean3\clthwash\spdsht\washl b 

## Standard Clothes Washer·-- DOETestProcedure -- MEF**~**



### ·**~.'\.** 

## $2,600

## ;~~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------, $2,400
$2,200

,-. 

## 0**~** 

## $2,000 'o:t Q\ Q\ .-I '-' 

# - -<>-2%**~** 

## $1,800 U 

## --0-6%**~** 

### 'ti**~15%** ;... 

### U

I**~** 

## $1,600 

# ;::s $1,400 II 

## 12 13 14 

## $1,200
$1,000 0.6 0.8 

## 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Modified Energy Factor

c:\clean3\c1thwash\spdsht\washI b

## Standard Clothes Washer
D ATTAA~ 'u'^.sbA -.----

I Proposedjacu rL 1 CeL r l'O ed-ue it 1) 

## Dryer Energy Unaccounted For

392 cycles/year Markup 2.0 Design Desi'n Option Increm. Total Retail Energy Use--Proposed TestProcedure Electric Gas Combined Level (4)(5)(6) per unit Mfg. Cost Hot

- Machine Total Clothes Energy Water Use Per Cycle (9) Payback Payback Elect.&Gas mfg. costs Cost (2)
. Water Energy Energy Container Factor Total Gallons per Cumm. Cumm. Payback $ $ $ kWh/cycle kWh/cycle kWh/cycle cu. ft. cu.ftAWhWcycic Gallons cu. ft. capacity years (3) years (3) years (3) 0 Baseline (Vert. Axis) (4) $192 $383 1.47 0.22 1.69 2.93 1.73 38.9 13.4 I 0+Tightertub tolerance $7 $199 $397 1.38 0.22 1.60 2.93 1.83 36.0 12.3 2.5 3.4 2.9 2 1+Improved FillControl $17 $215 $431 1.24 0.22 1.46 2.93 2.00 33.5 11.4 3.7 5.6 4.6 3 2+Thermostatic Mixing Valve $8 $224 $447 1.21 0.22 1.43 2.93 2.05 33.5 13.4 4.6 7.2 5.8
0 Baseline $192 $383 1.47 0:22 1.69 2:93 1.73 38.9 13.4 4 Horizontal Axis Design $101 $293 $586 0.43 0.25 0.65 2.77 4.23 26.1 9.4 4.6 8.2 6.1 5 Horz. Axisw/recirculation $3 $296 $592 0.35 0.26 0.61 2.74 4.50 21.8 8.0 4.1 7.0 5.3 6 5+Thermostatic Mixing Valve $8 $304 $608 0.34 0.26 0.60 2.74 4.58 21.8 13.4 4.4 7.5 5.7 0+Added Insulation $49 $240 $481 1.60 0.22 1.84 2.94 1.60 38.9 13.6 NA NA NA 0+Increase Motor Efficiency $10 $201 $402 1.47 0.20 1.67 2.93 1.75 38.9 13.4 30.6 31.6 31.2 0+Suds Saving $28 $219 $438 1.52 0.22 1.75 2.91 1.67 .35.6 12.3 27.8 18.5 21.8 0+Direct Drive Motor $71 $262 $525 1.47 0.09 1.70 2.94 1.73 38.9 13.6 35.8 35.8 35.8 (1) Data used was submitted by AHAM (2) Markup =2.0 (3) Elect. (94$/kWh) = 0.0838 Gas (94$/MBTU) = 6.03 Water Cost ($/1000 gal.) = 2.84 Water Heater Efficiency: Elect. = 1.00; Gas = 0.75 Fuel Price Multiplier: Elect. = 0.90; Gas = 1.01 Fraction Water Heaters: Elect. = 0.45; Gas = 0.55 (4) Baseline data assumed to be for vertical axis machine (5) When optionsare combined, adjustments are made to avoid double counting savings (6) AutoFill Control and Advanced Sensor/Control may be added when data isgathered on these design options (7) Noadjustments were made for the differences in vertical and horizontal drum capacity (8) Dollar values are shown in rounded dollars, actual values as provided byAHAM are used in allcalculations (9) Nodetergent savings are expected as water use is reduced 

### c:\clean3\clthwash\spdsht\wash 11A 6/9/95 

# StandardClothes Washer D_",
__6'O""..1 .4

# IT........ ,..,.........4. T'I

__ - -**~**____ - /11 '\ ""' a**UI'U"'~U** 1"11.-1.1"111'.1, J.**C~**.. C l'U\:CUUI-': \.J.) 

# DryerEnergyUnaccountedFor 392 cycles/year Markup 2.0
Design .**oesi~** Option Increm. Total Retail Energy Use

-- ProposedTestProcedure I 1.e",,1 (4)(5)(6)

.'

0 Bao;eline (Ven. Axis) (4) I 0+ Tightertubtolerance 2 I+ImprovedFill Control 3 2+Thermostatic Mixing Valve
0 Baseline 4 Horizontal Axis Ocsign 5 HolZ. Axis w/recirculation



### r 6 5+ Thermostatic Mixing Valve O+Added Insulation O+Increase MotorEfficiency O+Suds Saving O+Direct Drive Motor (I) Dataused was submitted by AHAM (2) Markup =2.0 (3) Elect. (94$IkWh) = 0.0838 Gas (94$IMBTU) = 6.03 WaterCost($11000gal.) = 2.84 perunit Mfg. mfg. costs Cost $ $ $192 $7 $199 $17 $215 $8 $224 $192 $\01 $293 $3 $296 $8 $304 $49 $240 $10 $201 $28 $219 $71 $262

WaterHeaterEfficiency: Elect. = 1.00; Gas

# = 0.75 Fuel Price Multiplier: Elect. = 0.90; Gas= 1.01 FractionWaterHeaters: Elect. = 0.45; Gas = 0.55 (4) Baselinedataassumed to be for vertical axis machine Cost Hot (2) Water $ kWh/cycle $383 1.47 $397 1.38 $431 1.24 $447 1.21 $383 1.47 $586 0.43 $592 0.35 $608 0.34 $481 1.60 $402 1.47 $438 1.52 $525 1.47

(5) Whenoptionsarecombined. adjustments are made to avoid doublecounting savings Machine Total Energy Energy kWh/cycle kWh/cycle

0.22 1.69 0.22 1.60 0.22 1.46 0.22 1.43
0:22 1.69 0.25 0.65 0.26 0.61 0.26 0.60 0.22 1.84 0.20 1.67 0.22 1.75 0.09 1.70

(6) AutoFill Control and Advanced Sensor/Control may beadded when data is gathered onthese design options (7) Noadjustments were made for thedifferencesin vertical and horizontal drum capacity (8) Dollarvalues are shown in rounded dollars. actual values as providedby AHAMare used in all calculations (9) Nodetergent savings areexpected as wateruse is reduced Qothes Container

cu. ft. 2.93 2.93 2.93 2.93 2,93 2.77 2.74 2.74 2.94 2.93 2.91 2.94



### c:\clean3\cJthwash\spdsht\washIIA Electric Gas Combined Energy Water Use PerCycle (9) Payback Payback Elect.&Gas Factor Total Gallons per Cumm. Cumm. Payback cu.ft.lkWhicycle Gallons cu. ft. capacity years (3) years (3) years (3) 1.73 38.9 13.4 

### , 1.83 36.0 12.3 2.5 3.4 2.9 2.00 33.5 11.4 3.7 5.6 4.6 2.05 33.5 13.4 4.6 7.2 5.8
1.73 38.9 13.4 4.23 26.1 9.4 4.6 8.2 6.1 4.50 21.8 8.0 4.1 7.0 5.3 4.58 21.8 13.4 4.4 7.5 5.7 1.60 38.9 13.6 NA NA NA 1.75 38.9
. 13.4 30.6 31.6 31.2 1.67**~5.6** '12.3 27.8 18.5
. 21.8 1.73 38.9 13.6 35.8 35.8 35.8



### 6/9/95

## Proposed AHAM Test Procedure DryerEnergy Unaccounted For Design Design Option'" Hot Water Energy Machine Water Total Total 

### Life Cycle Cost
- 

### EF (1) Level ' Electric Gas Energy Use Electric Gas Electric Gas $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr Diccount Rate Discount Rate 2% 6% 15% 2% 6% 15% 0 Baseline (Vert.Axis) (4) $43 $16 $7 $43 $93 $66 $1,519 $1,254 $918 $1,184 $997 $760 I 0+Tighter tub tolerance $41 $15 $7 $40 $87 $62 $1,463 $1,214 $899 $1,148 $973 .$751 2 I+lmproved Fill Control $37 $13 $7 $37 $80 $57 $1,411 $1,182 $893 $1,128 $965 $759 3 2+Thermostatic Mixing Valve $36 $13 $7 $37 $79 $57 $1,415 $1,189 $903 $1,140 $978 $773

_ . _________ $0 $0 $0 $0 0 Baseline $43 $16 $7 $43 $93 $66 $1,519 $1,254 $918 $1,184 $997 $760 4 Horizontal Axis Design $13 $5 $7 $29 $49 $41 $1,185 $1,045 $868 $1,086 $969 $821 5 Horz. Axis w/recirculation $10 $4 $8 $24 $42 $36 $1,106 $986 $834 $1,027 $926 $797 6 5+Thernostatic Mixing Valve $10 $4 $8 $24 $42 $36 $1,119 $1,000 $849 $1,042 $941. $813 0+Added Insulation $47 $17 $7 $43 $97 $67 $1,663 $1,387 $1,038 $1,299 $1,108 $866 0+Increase MotorEfficiency $43 $16 $6 $43 $93 $65 $1,531 $1,267 $934 $1,196 $1,011 $776 0+Suds Saving $45 $17 $7 $40 $91 $63 $1,550 $1,290 $962 $1,203 i $1,025 $798 0+Direct Drive Motor $43 $16 $3 $43 $89 $62 $1,613 $1,359 $1,037 $1,278 $1,102 $879 (1) Clothes Washer Life= 14.1 years

c:\clean3\clthwash\spdsht\wash IIA 6/9/95 

### c:\clean3\clthwash\spdsht\wash 11A 6/9/95 

# ProposedAHAM TestProcedure DryerEnergyUnaccountedFor Design Design**Optio~** " HotWaterEnergy Level ) 

# , Electric Gas 

### '"' $Iyr $Iyr
0 Baseline (Vert. Axis) (4) $43 $16 1 OTTightertub tolerance $41 $15 2 ITlmproved Fill Control $37 $13 3 2TThennostaticMixing Valve $36 $13 $0 $0 0 Baseline $43 $16 4 Horizontal Axis Design $\3 $5 5 HolZ. Axis w/recirculation $10 $4 

## , 6 5T**Therin~tatic** Mixing Valve $10 $4 OTAdded Insulation $47 $17 OTlncrease MotorEfficiency $43 $16 OTSuds Saving $45 $17 OTDirect DriveMotor $43 $16 (I) ClothesWasher Life

## =14.1 years Machine water Total Energy 

## Use Electric

$Iyr $tyr $Iyr $7 $43 $93 $7 $40 $87 $7 $37 $80 $7 $37 $79 $0 $0 $7 $43 $93 $7 $29 $49 $8 $24 $42 $8 $24 $42 $7 $43 $97 $6 $43 $93 $7 $40 $91 $3 $43 $89 Total 

### Life Cycle Cost

-- EF (1) Gas Electric Gas $Iyr Diccount Rate Discount Raie 2% ·6% 15% 2% 6% 15% $66 $1,519 $1,254 $918 $1,184 $997 $760 $62 $1,463 $1,214 $899 $\,148 $973

. $751 $57 $\,411 $1,182 $893 $\,128 $965 $759 $57 $1,415 $1,189 $903 $1,140 $978· $773 $66 $1,519 $1,254 $918 $1,184 $997 $760 $41 $1,185 $1,045 $868 $\,086 $969 $821 $36 $1,106 $986 $834 $1,027 $926 $797 $36 $1,119 $1,000 $849 $\,042 $941
. $8\3 $67 $1,663 $1.387 $1,038 $1,299 $1,108 $866 $65 $1,531 $1,267 $934 $1,196 $1,011 $776 $63 $1,550 $1,290 $962 $\,203 i $1,025 $798 $62 $1,613 $1,359 $1,037 $\,278 $1,102 $879



## c:\c1ean3\c1thwash\spdsht\washIIA 6/9/95

## StandardClothes Washer -- Proposed AHAM Test Procedure -- EF $1,600 /, $1,500 $1,400 $1,300
$1,200 - %


### -- 2%

--

0-6% 

## $1,loo -- 15%
$1,000 4 6 5 $900
$800
$700

. 

## I 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Energy Factor

c:\clean3\clthwash\spdsht\wash 1 a 

## Standard Clothes Washer -- ProposedAHAMTestProcedure _. EF**~** '.

## " $1,600**I·~~~--------------------------------------------------------------------~-------'** 

### $1,500 $1,400 $1,300 ,-. fA-

# ~**~** r 

### '-' $1,200 

# .. til 

### o U**~**

## ~ $1,100 U

## ~ 

# :s $1,000 

# o

5 

### $900

# ~:------ _____

# ~__

# ~

# ~ $800
$700 1.5 2.0 

## 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 

### Energy Factor

c:\c1ean3\c1thwash\spdsht\wash11a 

### 6

5.0 

### -<>-2% -0-6%**~15%**

## Clothes Washer -- Standard Proposed AHAM Test Procedure with RMC Added (1) 392 cycles/yr Markup 2.0 Design Design Option Increm. Total Retail Energy Use --Proposed TestProcedure Hv Total MEF WaterUse Electric Gas Combine( Level (4)(5)(6)(8)(11) per unit Mfg. Cost Hot Machine Total Clothes Energy Factor ref.=62% Energy cu. ft. per Per Cycle (13) Payback Payback Elect.& G: mfg. costs Cost (2) Water Energy Energy Container cu. ft. per 

### RMC with ME kWh/cyclc Total Gallons per Cuini. CumInI. Payhack

__ .. _, $$ (12) $ (12) $ (12) kWh/cycle kWh/cycle kWh/cycle cu.ft. kWh/cycle (7) kWh/cycle (7) Gallons cii. ft. cap. years (3) years (3) years (3) 0 Baseline (vert. axis) $192 $383 1.47 0.22 1.69 2.93 1.73 1.46 3.15 0.93 38.9 13.3 I 0+RMC = 50% $10 $201 $402 1.47 0.23 1.70 2.93 1.73 1.16 2.85 1.03 38.9 13.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 2 0+RMC =40% $9 $210 $419 1.47 0.23. 1.70 2.93 1.72 0.91 2.61 1.12 38.9 13.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 3 2+Tighter tub tolerance $7 $217 $433 1.38 0.23 1.62 2.93 1.81 0.91 2.52 1.16 36.0 12.3 2.3 2.5 2.4 4 3+Thermostatic Mixing Valve $8 $225 $450 1.34 0.23 1.58 2.93 1.86 0.91 2.48 1.18 36.0 12.3 2.9 3.2 3.1 5 4+lmproved Fill Control $17 $242 $483 1.21 0.23 1.44 2.93 2.03 0.91 2.35 1.25 33.5 11.4 3.4 4.0 3.7 .6 5+RMC =35% $22 $264 $527 1.21 0.24 1.45 2.93 2.02 0.78 2.23 1.31 33.5 11.4 4.3 5.1 4.7 7 5+RMC = 30% $4 $268 $536 1.21 0.27 1.48 2.93 1.98 0.65 2.13 1.37 33.5 11.4 4.2 4.9 4.6
0 Baseline (vert. axis) $192 $383 1.47 0.22 1.69 2.93 1.73 1.46 3.15 0.93 38.9 13.3 8 Horizontal Axis Design $101' $293 $586 0.43 0.25 0.68 2.77

- 4.06 1.46 2.14 1.29 26.1 9.4 4.6 8.2 6.1 9 Horz. Axis w/recirculation $3 $296 $592 0.35 0.26 0.61 2.74 4.50 1.46 2.07 1.32 21.8 8.0 4.1 7.0 5.3 10 9+RMC = 50% $10 $306 $611 0.35 0.27 0.61 2.74 4.46 1.16 1.77 1.54 21.8 8.0 3.8 5.9 4.7 II 9+RMC =40%
. $9 $314 $628 0.35 0.27 0.62 2.74 4.40 0.91 1.53 1.79 21.8 8.0 3.7 5.3 4.4 12 9+RMC = 35% $22 $336 $672 0.35 0.28 0.63 2.74 4.33 0.78 1.41i 1.94 21.8 8.0 4.1 5.8 4.9 13 9+RMC=30% $4 $341 $681 0.35 0.31 0.66 2.74 4.13 0.65 1.32 2.08 21.8 8.0 4.1 5.7 4.8 14 13+Thermostatic Mixing Valve $8 $349 $697 0.34 0.31 0.65 2.74 4.20 0.65 1.31 2.09 21.8- 8.0 4.3 6.0 5.1 0+Added Insulation $49 $240 $481 1.60 0.22 1.84 2.94 1.60
. 1.46 3.28 0.90 38.9 13.6 NA NA
. NA 0+Increase Motor Efficiency $10
. $201 $402 1.47 0.20 1.67 2.93 1.75 1.46 3.13 0.94 38.9 13.4 30.6 31.6 31.2 0+Suds Saving $28 $219 $438 1.52 0.22 1.75 2.91 1.67 1.46 3.21 0.91 35.6 12.3 27.8 18.5 21.8 0+Direct Drive Motor $71 $262 $525 1.47 0.09 1.70 2.94 1.73 1.46 3.01 0.98 38.9 13.6 35.8 35.8 35.8 (1) Data used was submitted by AHAM (7) Based on: (2) Markup =2.0 (a)Modified DOE testprocedure forRMC (3) Elect. (94$/kWh) = 0.0838 (b) Baseline RMCof62% Gas (94$/MBTU) = 6.03 (c) Residual RMCof4% Water Cost ($/1000 gal.) = 2.84 (d) 12.1 lb load x 0.52 avg. load ratio = 6.29 Ibs adjusted clothes load Water Heater Efficiency: Elect. = 1.00; Gas =0.75 (e) DUF =0.8 Fuel Price Multiplier: Elect. =0.90; Gas = 1.01 (8) Somedesign options were notcombined with others dueto high payback Fraction Water Heaters: Elect. = 0.45; Gas = 0.55 (9) Sud Savings omitted because oflimited application; also requires a separate wash tub (4) Baseline data assumed to be for vertical axis machine (10) Auto Fill Control arid Advanced Sensor/Control may be added when data is gathered on these design options (5) When options are combined, adjustments are made to avoid doublecounting savings (11) No adjustments were made forthe differences in vertical and horizontal drumcapacity (6) The same RMC data was used for vertical and horizontal axismachines (12) Dollar values are shown in rounded dollars, actual values asprovided by AHAM are used in all calculations (13) No detergent savings are expected as water use is reduced 

### c:\clean3\clthwash\spdsht\wash 11B 6/9/95 

## ClothesWasher

-- Standard ProposedAHAMTestProcedurewith RMCAdded (1) 392 

## cycleslyr Markup 2.0 Design Design Option Increm. Total Retail Energy Use

-- 

### ProposedTestProcedure Hv Total MEF W31erUse Electric Level (4)(5)(6)(8)(11)



### . '.

0 Baseline (vert. axis) I O+RMC= 50% 2 O+RMC = 40% 3
. 2+ Tightertub tolerance 4 3+ Thermostatic Mixing Valve 5 4+ImprovedFilIControl 6 5+RMC=35% 7 5+RMC= 30%
0 Baseline (vert. axis) 8 Horizontal Axis Design 

### r 9 Horz. Axis w/recirculation 10 9+RMC=50% II 9+RMC = 40% 12 9+RMC= 35% 13 9+RMC = 30% 14 13+Thermostatic Mixing Valve O+Added Insulation O+lncrease MotorEfficiency O+Suds Saving O+Direct Drive Motor (I) Data used was submitted byAHAM (2) Markup= 2.0 (3) Elecl.**(94$1k~h)** = 0.0838 Gas (94$IMBTU) = 6.03 WaterCost ($/1000 gal.) = 2.84 perunit Mfg. mfg. costs Cost

$ (12) $ (12) $192 $10 $201 $9 $210 $7 $217 $8 $225 $17 $242 $22 $264**~4** $268 $1.92 $101 '. $293

$3 $296 $10 $306 $9 $314 $22 $336 $4 $341

, $8 $349

$49 $240 $10 S201 $28 $219 $71 $262

Water HeaterEfficiency: Elect. = 1.00; Gas = 0.75 Fuel Price Multiplier: Elecl. = 0.90; Gas

## =1.01 l . Fraction WaterHeaters: Elecl. = 0.45; Gas = 0.55 (4) Baseline data assumed to be for vertical axis machine Cost Hot (2) Water $ (12) kWh/cycle $383 1.47 $402 1.47 $419 1.47 $433 1.38 $450 1.34 $483 1.21 $527 1.21 $536 1.21 $383 1.47 $586 0.43 $592 0.35 $61\ 0.35 $628 0.35 $672 0.35 $681 0.35 $697 0.34 $481 1.60 $402 1.47 $438 1.52 $525 1.47

(5) When options are combined, adjustments are made to avoid doublecounting savings (6) The same RMC data was used for vertical and horizontal axis machines Machine Energy kWh/cycle

0.22 0.23 0.23. 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.27
0.22 0.25 0.26 0.2,7 0.27 0.28 0.31 0.31 0.22 0.20. 0.22 0.09 Total Clothes Energy Factor ref.=62% Energy**cu.~.** per Per Cycle (13) Energy Container cu. fl. per 

## RMC with MEl kWh/cycle cu. ft. kWh/cycle (7) kWh/cycle 1.69 2.93 1.73 1.46 .3.15 1.70 2.93 1.73 1.16 2.85 1.70 2.93 . 1.72 0.91 2.61 1.62 2.93 1.81 0.91 2.52 1.58 2.93 1.86 0.91 2.48 1.44 2.93 2.03 0.91 2.35 1.45 2.93 2.02 0:78 2.23 1.48 2.93 1.98 0.65 2.13



# - 1.69 2.93 1.73 1.46 3.15 0.68 2.77 4.06 1.46 2.14 0.61 2.74 4.50 1.46 2.07 0.61 2.74 4.46 1.16 1.77 0.62 2.74 4.40 0.91 1.53 0.63 2.74 4.33 0.78 1.41i 0.66 2.74 4.13 0.65 1.32 0.65 2.74 4.20 0.65 1.31 1.84 2.94 1.60 1.46 3.28 1.67 2.93 1.75 1.46 3.13 1.75 2.91 1.67 1.46 3.21 1.70 2.94 1.73 1.46 3.01 (7) Based on: (a) Modified DOE test procedure for RMC (b) BaselineRMCof62% (c) Residual RMC of4% kWh/cycle Total (7) Gallons 0.93 38.9 1.03 38.9 1.12 38.9 1.16 36.0 1.18 36.0 1.25 33.5 1.31 33.5 1.37 33.5
0.93 38.9 1.29 26.1 1.32 21.8

. 1.54 21.8

1.79 21.8 1.94 21.8 2.08 21.8 2.09 21.8· 0.90 38.9 0.94 . 38.9 0.91 35.6 0.98 38.9

(d) 12.I Ib load x 0.52 avg. load ratio = 6.291bs adjusted clothes load (e) DUF=0.8 (8) Somedesign options were not combined with others dueto high payback (9) SudSavings omitted because oflimited application; also requires a separ31e wash tub Gallons per cu. ft. cap. 13.3 13.3 13.3 12.3 12.3 11.4 11.4 11.4
13.3 9.4 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 13.6 13.4 12.3 13.6 Payback CUIIlIII
. years (3)

2.2 2.3 2.3 2.9 3.4 4.3 4.2

4.6 4.1 3.8 3.7 4.1 4.1 4.3 NA 30.6 27.8 35.8

(10) AutoFill Control arid Advanced Sensor/Control may be added when data is gathered on these design options (II) No adjustments were made for the differences in vertical and horizontal drum capacity (12) Dollarvalues are shown in rounded dollars, actual values as providedby AHAM are used in all calculations (13) No detergent savings areexpected as water use is reduced 

### c:\cIean3\clthwash\spdsht\wash11B Gas Combine! Payback Elecl.&G: CUflllll. Payhad years (3) years (3)

2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.4 3.2 3.1 4.0 3.7 5.1 4.7 4.9 4.6

8.2 6.1 7.0 5.3 5.9 4.7 5.3 

### 4.4 5.8 4.9 5.7 4.8 6.0 5.1 NA NA 31.6 31.2 18.5 21.8 35.8 35.8



### 6/9/95

## Proposed AHAM Test Procedure with RMC Added

Design Design Option HotWater Energy Machine Water Elect. Total Total 

### Life Cycle Cost --RMC/ MEF Level Electric Gas Energy Use Dryer Electric Gas Electric Gas $.yr $/yr $ /yr $ /yr $/yr /yr $/yr Discount Rate

- Discount Rale

______,,____ __2% 6%
__ 15% 2% 6% 15% 0 Baseline (vert. axis) $43 $16 $7 $43 $43 $136 $109 $2,045 $1,657 $1,166 $1,710 $1,400 $1,008 I 0+RMC= 50% $43 $16 $7 $43 $34 $128 $100 $1,957 $1,594 $1,135 $1,623 $1,338 $977 2 0+RMC= 40% $43 $16 $7 $43 $27 $120 $93 $1,887 $1,544 $1,110 $1,552 $1,288 $953 3 2+Tighter tub tolerance $41 $15 $7 $40 $27 $115 $89 $1,831 $1,504 $1,091' $1,516 $1,263 $943 4 3+Thermostatic Mixing Valve $40 $15 $7 $40 $27 $114 $88 $1,832 $1,510 $1,101 $1,527 $1,275 $957 5 4+Improved Fill Control $36 $13 $7 $37 $27 $107 $84 $1,782 $1,479 $1,095 $1,507 $1,268 $966 6 5+RMC= 35% $36 $13 $7 $37 $23 $103 $81 $1,784 $1,491 $1,119 $1,509 $1,280 $990 7 5+RMC= 30% $36 $13 $8 $37 $19 $100 $78 $1,759 $1,473 $1,112 $1,484 $1,263 $982
0 Baseline (vert. axis) $43 $16 $7 $43 $43 $136 $109 $2,045 $1,657 $1,166 $1,710 $1,400 $1,008 8 , Horizontal AxisDesign $13 $5 $7 $29 $43 $92 $84 $1,710 $1,448 $1,115 $1,612 $1,372 $1,069 9 Horz. Axis w/recirculation $10 $4 $8 $24 $43 $85 $79 $1,632 $1,389 $1,082 $1,553 $1,329 $1,045 10 9+RMC=50% $10 $4 $8 $24 $34 $77 $70 $1,545 $1,327 $1,051 $1,465 $1,266 $1,014 II 9+RMC= 40% $10 $4 $8 $24 $27 $69 $63 $1,474 $1,277 $1,027 $1,395 $1,216 $989 12 9+RMC = 35% $10 $4 $8 $24 $23 $66 $59 $1,476 $1,288 $1,05i $1,397 $1,228 $1,013 13 9+RMC= 30% $10 $4 $9 $24. $19 $63 $57 $1,450 $1,271 $1,043 $1,371 $1,210 $1,006 14 13+Thermostatic Mixing Valve $10 $4 $9 $24 $19 $63 $57 $1,463 $1,284 $1,058 $1,386 $1,225 $1,022 0+Added Insulation $47 $17 $7 $43 $43 $140 $110 $2,189 $1,790 $1,285 $1,825 $1,511 $1,114 0+Increase MotorEfficiency $43 $16 $6 $43 $43 $136 $108 $2,056 $1,670 $1,181 $1,722 $1,414 $1,024 0+Suds Saving $45 $17 $7 $40 $43 $134 $106 $2,076 $1,693 $1,209 $1,729 $1,428 $1,046 0+Direct Drive Motor $43 $16 $3 $43 $43 $132 $105 $2,138 $1,762 $1,285 $1,804 $1,505 $1,127 (1) Clothes Washer Life= 14.1 years



### c:\clean3\clthwash\spdsht\wash IB 6/9/95 

# , ProposedAHAM TestProcedurewithRMC Added

Design Design Option Hot WaterEnergy Machine Water Elect. Total Total 

## Life Cycle Cost ··RMC I

## MEF Level Electric Gas Energy 

### Use Dryer Electric Gas Electric Gas 

### .'. $Iyr $Iyr $Iyr $Iyr $Iyr $Iyr $Iyr Discounl Rale Discounl Rate

;, 1% 6% 15% 1% 6% 15% 0 Baseline (ven. axis) $43 $16 $7 $43 $43 $136 $109 $2,045 $1,657 $1,166 $1,710 $1,400 $1,008 I O+RMC = 50% $43 $16 $7 $43 $34 $128 $100 $1,957 $1,594 $1,135 $1,623 $1,338 $977
. 2 O+RMC = 40% $43 $16 $7 $43 $27 $120 $93 $1,887 $1,544 $1,110 $1,552 $1,288 $953 3 2+Tighter tub lolerance $41 $15 $7 $40 $27 $115 $89 $1,831 $1,504 $1,091' $1,516 $1,263 $943 4 3+Thermostatic Mixing Valve $40 $15 $7 $40 $27 $114 $88 $1,832 $1,510 $1,101 $1,527 $1,275 $957 5 4+Improved Fill Control $36 $\3 $7 $37 $27 $107 $84 $1,782 $1,479 $1,095 $1,507 $1,268 $966 6**5+RM~=35%** $36 $13 $7 $37 $23 $103 $81 $1,784 $1,491 $1,119 $1,509 $1,280 $990 7 5+RMC = 30% $36 $13 $8 $37 $19 $100 $78 $1,759 $1,473 $1,112 $1,484 $1,263 $982
0 Baseline (ven. axis) $43 $16 $7 $43 $43**$1~6** $109 $2,045 $1,657 $1,166 $\,710 $1,400 $1,008 8 r Horizontal Axis Design $\3 $5 $7 $29 $43 $92 $84 $1,710 $1,448 $1,115 $1,612 $1,372 $1,069 9 Horz. Axis w/recirculation $10 $4 $8 $24 $43 $85 $79 $1,632 $1,389 $1,082 $1,553 $1,329
. $1,045 10 9+RMC=50% $10 $4 $8 $24 $34 $77 $70 $1,545 $1,327 $1.051 $1,465 $1,266 $1,014 II 9+RMC=40% $10 $4 $8 $24 $27 $69 $63 $1,474 $1,177 $1,027 $1,395 $1,216 $989 12 9+RMC=35% $10 •$4 $8 $24 $23 $66 $59 $1,476 $1,288 $I,05i $1,397 $1,228 $1,013 13 9+RMC= 30% $10 $4 $9 $24. $19' $63 $57 $1,450 $1,271 $1,043 $1,371 $1,210 $1,006 14 13+Thermostatic Mixing VaIve $10 $4 $9
. $24 $19
. $63 $57 $1,463 $1,184 $1,058 $1,386 $1,225 $1,022

. O+Added Insulation $47 $17 $7 $43 $43 $140 $110 $2,189 $1,790 $1,285 $1,825 $1,511 $1,114 O+lncrease MolorEfficiency $43 $16 $6 $43 $43 $136 $108 $2,056 $1,670 $1,181 $1,722 $1,414 $1,024 O+Suds Saving $45 $17 $7 $40 $43 $\34 $106 $2,076 $1,693 $1,209 $1,729 $1,428 $1,046 O+Direct Drive Motor $43 $16 $3 $43 $43 $132 $105 $2,138 $1,762 $1,285 $1,804 $1,505 $1,127 (I) Clothes WasherLife = 14.1 years



### c:\Clean3\clthwash\spdsht\washIIB 

### 6/9/95

## StandardClothes Washer -- AHAM Proposed Test Procedure -- MEF $2,100

$1,900

$1,700

0%0l 

### 0 

### |f8 $1


## . 50 0 

## 2" 1 

### 45~ 

### ' 4 '- -60-- 2%. $1,500

- 6% -6- 15% 

### $1,300 . 11 2 3 14 $1,100

$900

. 

### I I I I I I 0.8 0.9 1.0 .1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6. 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 Modified Energy Factor
c:\clean3\clthwash\spdsht\wash Ib 

# StandardClothes Washer

-- AHAM ProposedTest Procedure

-- MEF $2,100

$1,900



### $1,700 ,-..**~ ~**  

## 0 Q\ Q\ .-I '-' 

# ... "-' 

## -<>-2% Q 

### $1,500 U 

## --0-:6%**~** 

### 3 1j**~** 

### --tr-15% 

# u



# .**~** 

# ....

.**~** 

### $1,300 

## to

$900 0.8 

### 0.9 1.0 .1.1 1.2 

### 1.3 

### 1.4 1.5 1.6
. . 1.7 1.8 1,.9 

### 2.0 2.1 2.2 

### Modified Energy Factor
c:\clean3\clthwash\spdsht\washl1b

# Engineering Analysis Methodology For purposes ofusing as an example Iwill outline the procedure used in analyzing a Standard size Clothes Washer, using the existing DOE testprocedure with the MEFfrom the proposed DOE test procedure.. * StartingParameters Cost Data: Costdata for design options wasprovided by AHAM; incremental cost is used where appropriate Markup = 2.0 (manufacturer's cost x 2.0 = retail price) Used in previous analyses Cycles per year: DOE proposed standard: 416 AHAM proposed standard: 392 (average of last seven years of Procter &Gamble survey data) Fuel Prices: Based on Annual Energy Outlook published by Energy Information Agency (EIA). Prices are based on projected prices in the year 2000, in 1994 dollars. Electricity Price = $0.0838/kWh Gas Price = $6.03/MBTU FuelPrice Multipliers: Developed atLBL toadjust forregional variations in fuel use and corresponding variations infuel price. Fuel prices are multiplied by these factors togive an adjusted fuel price. Water and Sewage Cost: Prices fromthe 1994Ernst &Young database were weighted for population by Al Dietemann ofSeattle Water Department. Prices have not been adjusted for future predicted price increases. Water/Sewage Disposal Cost = $2.84/kgal. Clothes Washer Life = 14.1 years (from previous 1990 TSD, from AHAM information) 'Water HeaterEfficiencies: From DOE test procedure Electric = 1.00 Gas

- 0.75 'Water HeaterType: The DOEEnergy Factor is currently based on electric water heateruse. Where analysis was done based on actual distribution ofgas and electric water heaters, the following breakdown (provided by AHAM) was used. Fraction Electric = 0.45 Fraction Gas =0.55 

### Remaining Moisture Content: Theremaining moisture content for both DOE and AHAM analysis was based on a baseline reference of62% RMC. For DOE tests the clothes weight was determined according to the Proposed Test Procedure; 5.88 Ibs weighted cloth, with 0.5 kWh/lb required to remove remaining moisture. 

# EngineeringAnalysis Methodology

For purposes ofusing as an example I will outlinethe procedure usect in analyzing a Standard size Clothes Washer, using the existing DOEtestprocedure with the MEFfrom theproposed DOEtestprocedure
.. 

### • StartingParameters Cost Data: Costdata for design options was provided by AHAfv1; incremental cost is used where appropriate Markup

# =2.0 (manufacturer's costx 2.0

# = retail price) Used in previous analyses Cyclesperyear: DOEproposed standard: 416 AHAM proposed standard: 392 (average oflast seven years of Procter 

### & Gamble survey data) Fuel Pri,;:es: Based on Annual Energy Outlook published by Energy Information Agency (EIA). Prices ar:e based on projected prices in the year 2000, in 1994dollars. Electricity Price = 

### $0.0838/kWh Gas Price = 

### $6.03IMBTU Fuel PriceMultipliers: Developed atlBlto adjustfor regional vilriations in fuel use and corresponding variations in fuel price. Fuel

. prices are multiplied by these factors to give an adjusted fuel price. Waterand SewageCost: Pricesfrom the 1994Ernst

### &Youngdatabase were weightedfor populationby Al DietemannofSeattleWater Department. Prices have not been adjusted for future predictedpriceincreases. Water/Sewage Disposal Cost = 

### $2.84/kgal. Clothes WasherLife 

## = 14.1 years (fromprevious 1990TSD, from AHAM information) WaterHeaterEfficiencies: FromDOEtestprocedure Electric'**~** 

### 1.00 Gas::: 0.75 WaterHeaterType: TheDOEEnergy Factoris currently based on electric waterheateruse. Where analysis was done based on actual distribution ofgas and electric waterheaters, the following breakdown (provided by AHAM) was used. Fraction Electric = 

### 0.45 Fraction Gas

# =0.55 RemainingMoisture Content: Theremaining moisturecontentfor both DOEand AHAM analysis was based on a baselinereference of62% RMC.



## .. . 

### ForI;)OE tests the clothes weight was determined according to the ProposedTest Procedure; 5.88 lbs weighted clotli. with 0.5 kWhllbrequired to removeremaining moisture.**~.**

### * General Assumptions When design options were combined, the same costs were used in combining an option to vertical and horizontal axis machines. AHAM has been asked to provide more cost data forcombined design options. For example, there may be inherent cost savings in adding adesign option such as alower Reduce Moisture Contentto a machine depending on if itis vertical or horizontal. Also, certain costs may possibly be shared for agiven design option. No adjustments to energy savings have been made fordifferences indrum capacity. The range ofdrum capacities are relatively small. Other factors can also influence laundry load handling capability. The DOE Test Procedure uses the same test load for all standard size washers. * Adjustments to AHAM databefore Design Options are Combined Set water use for all RMC design options to baseline water use. These values differed only because of statistical reasons due to shipment weighted averages and number ofmanufacturers responding. SetTotal Gallons equal for "Reduce Thermal Mass", "Added Insulation", "Direct Drive Motor". These design options shouldn't affect water consumption. Equalize Clothes Container volume wherethey differ for statistical reasons only. Recalculate the Energy Factor. Setthe "Reduce Thermal Mass" and "Added Insulation" mechanical energy use to the baseline value. Set "Direct Drive Motor" hotwater usage to the baseline value. * Design Options Not Analyzed in Combination with Others-- Long Payback Some design options were notcombined with others butare included as separate optionsfrom the baseline. Some ofthese had very longpaybacks and were notanalyzed in combination with the others forreasons of simplifying the analysis. Those options not analyzed incombination withthe others for reasons oflong payback times are listedbelow: a) Reduce Thermal Mass b) Added Insulation c) Increase Motor Efficiency d) Direct Drive Motor
* Design Options Not Analyzed inCombination with Others -- OtherReasons Suds Saver: This option currently requires the use of anexternal wash tub. This option iscurrently available to consumers but isnot very popular. No reason to believe previous analysis on this item haschanged. * Design Options tobe Analyzed Pending theSubmittal ofData AHAM has been askedto provide additional data on these design options: Advanced Sensor/Control or Adaptive Control: This option would vary wash parameters automatically based on measuring soil load
2 

## • .GeneralAssumptions When design options werecombined, the samecosts were used in combining an option to vertical and horizontal axis machines. AHAM has been asked to provide more costdata for combineddesign options. For example, there may be inherentcostsavings in adding a design option such as a lower Reduce Moisture Contentto a machine depending on ifit is vertical orhorizontal. Also, certain costs may possibly be shared for a given design option. No adjustments to energy savingshave been made for differences in drum capacity. The range ofdrum capacities are relatively small. Otherfactors canalso influence laundry load handling capability. The DOE TestProcedure uses the sametest load for all standard size washers.


## • Adjustmentsto AHAM databeforeDesign Optionsare Combined

Factor. Setwateruse for all RMC design options to baseline**wat~!**

### use. Thesevalues differed only because of statisticalreasons dueto shipment weighted averages and number ofmanufacturers responding. SetTotal Gallonsequal for "ReduceThermalMass", "Added Insulation", "DirectDrive Motor". Thesedesign options shouldn'taffect waterconsumption. EqualizeClothesContainervolume wherethey**d~ffer**

### fQr statistical reasonsonly. RecalculatetheEnergy
Setthe "ReduceThermalMass" and " Added Insulation" mechanical energyuse to the baseline value. Set "DirectDrive Motor" hot water usageto the baselinevalue.


## • Design OptionsNotAnalyzed in Combinationwith Others •• Long Payback Somedesign options were notcombined with others butare included as separate optionsfrom the baseline. Someofthese had very long paybacks and were notanalyzed in combination with the others for

## re~ons of simplifying the analysis. Those options not analyzed in combination with the others for reasons oflong paybacktimes are listed below:
. a) ReduceThermal Mass b) AddedInsulation c) IncreaseMotorEfficiency d) DirectDriveMotor



## • Design OptionsNotAnalyzedin Combinationwith Others•• OtherReasons Suds Saver: This option currently requires the use ofanexternal wash tub. This option is currently available to consumers butis notvery popular. No reason to believeprevious analysis on this item has changed.


## • Design Optionsto be Analyzed Pendingthe SubmittalofData AHAMlias been asked to provide additional data on thesedesign options: :"**Advan~St;nsor/Control** 

### orAdaptive Control: This option would vary washparameters automatically based on measuring soil load


### 2

### Auto Fill: This option would automatically adjust waterlevel based onclothes load Existing DOE Test Procedure with RMC provision added. Analysis Considerations * InitialConsiderations Thedesign option withthe lowestpayback period becomes the first ranked option. In this case this was tighter tub tolerance. Since the entire tub annulus is not submerged in a horizontal axis washer this design option was not used with horizontal axis machines. This necessitated a split inthe analysis between vertical and horizontal axis machines. This developed into two basic analysis: vertical and horizontal axis machines. When the horizontal axis option is used thetighter tub tolerance option drops out-and horizontal axis becomes the first option. Technically RMC should become the next option because it had a lower payback than the horizontal axis option but ahorizontal axis machine may affect the cost/performance ofadding on aRMC feature. * Baseline (vertical axis) Retail Cost: Verbal by Wayne Morris ofAHAM (based on marketing research survey) Manufacturer cost = retail cost/ markup E.F.: Used value submitted by AHAM based on shipment weighted average

Design Levels 1-7 (Vertical Axis) * Level 1: TighterTubTolerance Used values submitted by AHAM * Level 2: Level 1 +RMC = 50% Machine energy increases, used values provided byAHAM. Hot waterenergy use remains unchanged from previous design option Total Energy column =Mechanical +Hot Water Energy Dryer energy is accounted forin modifiedenergy factor (MEF) Level I total water use (lowering RMC doesn't change water use) * Level 3:Level 1 + RMC = 40% Machine energy increases, used AHAM value (see Level 2) Add incremental cost to go from 50% to 40% RMC * Level 4: Level 3 +Thermostatic Mixing Valve HotWater use is decreased by a percentage: (TMV hot water/ Baseline hot water) *(level 3 hot water) Machine energy remains the same
* Level 5:Level 4 +RMC =35% Hotwater usage stays the same Machine Energy changes; AHAM value
3 Auto Fill: This option would automatically adjust water level based on clothes load 

## ExistingDOE TestProcedure with RMCprovision added. Analysis Considerations
• Initial Considerations 

# •
Thedesign option with the lowestpaybackperiod becomesthefirst ranked option. In this case this was tighter tub tolerance. Since the entiretub annulus is not submerged in a horizontal axis washerthis design optionwas not used with horizontal axis machines. This necessitated a splitin the analysis

## betwee~ vertical and horizontal axis machines. This developed into two basic analysis: vertical and horizontal axis machines. When the horizontal axis option is used the tightertub tolerance option drops out andhorizontal axis becomes the first option. Technically RMC should becomethe nextoption because it had a lowerpaybackthan the horizontal axis option but a horizontal axis machine may affectthecost/performance ofadding on a RMC feature.



## . 

# ,- • Baseline (vertical axis) Retail Cost: Verbal byWayneMorris ofAHAM (baSed on marketing research survey) Manufacturercost

# = retail cost I markup E.F.: Used value submitted by AHAM based on shipment weighted'average



## Desia:n Leyels 1-7 (VerticalAxis)
• Levell: TighterTubTolerance Used values submitted by AHAM


## • Level 2: Levell

## +RMC

# = 50% Machine energy increases, used values provided by AHAM. Hot waterenergy use remains unchanged from previous design option Total Energy column

# = Mechanical

## +HotWaterEnergy Dryerenergy is accounted for in modifiedenergy factor (MEF) Levell tota] wateruse (lowering RMC doesn'tchange wateruse)


## • Level 3: Levell 

## +RMC

# = 40%


# •

• Machine energy increases, used AHAM value (see Level 2) Add incremental costto go from 50% to 40% RMC 

## Level 4: Level 3 

## +ThermostaticMixing Valve HotWateruse is decreased by a percentage: (TMV hot water/Baseline hot water) 

# *(level 3 hot water) Machine energyremains the same


## Level

# 5: Level4 

## +RMC

# = 35% Hot water usage stays the same Machine Energy changes;AHAMvalue


### 3

### MEF value changes * Level 6: RMC = Level 4 + 30% 

### Hotwater usage stays the same Machine Energy changes; AHAM value MEF value changes Machine energy increases * Level 7: Level 6 +Improved Fill Control HotWater use changes: (IFChot water /Baseline hot water)* (Level 6hot water) Other parameters stay constant Total water use decreased by percentage: (IFC gals./baseline gals.)*( Level 6 gallons) Design Levels 8 - 13 (Horizontal Axis) * Level 8: Horizontal Axis Design Used AHAM values * Level 9: Horizontal Axis with recirculation Even though this option had alower payback than horizontal axis, it was placed afterhorizontal since itis a kind of horizontal axis machine with further features. It isunderstood that the design may be significantly different than horizontal axis and notnecessarily asimple add onfeature. Usedactual values submitted by AHAM (did not combine with Level 8) * Level 10: Level 9 + RMC = 50% 

### Hot Water usage remains unchanged Mechanical Energy (in kWh/cycle) = 0.26 + (0.227

-0.221) = Level 9 + (difference between baseline and RMC = 50%) 

### where: 0.260= horiz. axis w/recirculation 0.227 = for 50% RMC design option only 0.221 =baseline mechanical energy * Level 11: Level 9+ RMC = 40% Same methodology as Level 10 * Level 12: Level 11 +Thermostatic Mixing Valve Mechanical Energy remains unchanged from Level 11 Hot Water Energy = (original TMV hot water /baseline hot water)*( Level 11 hot water) i.e. hot wateris reduced by a percentage ofprevious design option hot water use * Level 13: Level 11 + RMC = 35% 

### Machine energy increases (same methodology as other RMC design options) Hot Water usage remains unchanged from previous design option * Level 14: Level 12 + RMC = 30% 

### Machine energy increases (same methodology as otherRMC design options) Hot Water usage remains unchanged fromprevious design option

4 MEFvaluechanges



### • Level 6: RMC 

## =Level 4 

## +30% Hot waterusage stays the same Machine Energy changes; AHAM value MEF valuechanges Machine energy increases


### • Level 7: Level 6 

## +ImprovedFill Control Hot Water use changes: (IFC hot water I Baseline hot water)* (Level 6 hot water) Otherparameters stay constant Total water use decreased by percentage; (IFCgals.!baseline gals.)*( Level 6 gallons)


### Desien Levels 8 - 13 (Horizontal Axis) 

# ., Level 8: Horizontal Axis

### I)esign Used AHAM values \' 

## --

• Level 9: HorizontalAxis with recirculation Even though this option had a lowerpaybackthan horizontal axis, it was placed afterhorizontal since it is a kind of horizontal axis machine with furtherfeatures. Itis understood thatthe design may

### be significantly different than horizontal axis and not necessarily a simple add on feature. Used actual values submitted by AHAM (did notcombine with Level 8)



### • Level 10: Level 9 

## +RMC

# = 50% HotWaterusage remains unchanged Mechanical Energy (in kWh/cycle)

# = 0.26

## +(0.227

- 0.221)

# = Level 9 

## +(difference between baseline and RMC = 

### 50%) where: 0.260

# = horiz. axis w/recirculation 0.227 = 

### for 50% RMC design option only 0.221

# = baselinemechanical energy


### • Level 11: Level9

## +RMC

# = 40% Samemethodology as Level 10



### • Level 12: Level 11 

## +ThermostaticMixingValve Mechanical Energy remains unchanged from Level 11 HotWaterEnergy = 

### (original lMVhot water !baselinehotwater)*( Level 11 hot water) i.e. hot water is reduced by a percentage ofprevious design option hotwateruse


### • Level 13: Level 11 

## +RMC

# =35% Machine energy increases (same methodology as otherRMC design options) HotWater usageremains unchanged from previous design option



### • Level 14: Level 12

## +RMC

# = 30% Machine energy increases (same methodology as otherRMC design options) HotWaterusage remains unchanged from previous design option

4