### APPENDIX Q. LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Q-i

### APPENDIX Q. LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

§: Section Act or EPCA: Part B of Title ifi of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act, Public Law 95-619, the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, Public Law 100-12, the National Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments of 1988, Public Law 100-357, and the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486 ADL: Arthur D. Little AEC: Annual Energy Consumption AEO: Annual Energy Outlook, DOE/ETA publication AGA: American Gas Association AHAM: Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers ANOPR: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ARIMA: Auto-Regressive Moving Average Model ASME: American Society of Mechanical Engineers AWWA: American Water Works Association BLS: Bureau of Labor Statistics BOM: Bill of Materials Btu: British thermal unit C: carbon CAPM: capital asset pricing model ccf: hundreds of cubic feet CEE: Consortium for Energy Efficiency

Q-1

### CES: Consumer Expenditure Surveys

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations CH2: methane CIR: Current Industrial Reports CM: Census of Manufactures CO: carbon monoxide C02: carbon dioxide CRADA: Cooperative Research and Development Agreement CRF: capital recovery factor cu.ft.: cubic feet CW: clothes washer DOD: Department of Defense DOE: Department of Energy DOJ: Department of Justice EA: Environmental Assessment EEl: Edison Electric Institute EF: Energy Factor EIA: Energy Information Administration EJ: exajoules (1018 joules) ELCAP: Elrick & Lavidge Computerized Audit Program E.O.: Executive Order EPCA: Energy Policy and Conservation Act Q-2

### EPA: Environmental Protection Agency

EPRI: Electric Power Research Institute FASB: Financial Accounting Standards Board FEMP: Federal Energy Management Program ft.3: cubic feet FR: Federal Register G & A: General and Administrative GAAP: Generally Accepted Accounting Principles GJ: gigajoules (lOg joules) GRI: Gas Research Institute GRIM: Government Regulatory Impact Model H-axis: horizontal axis ImBuild: Impact of Building Energy Efficiency Programs model kt/a: thousand metric tons per year kWh: kilowatt-hour LBNL: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory LCC: Life-Cycle Cost LPG: Liquid petroleum gas MACT: Maximum Achievable Control Technology MIA: Manufacturer Impact Analysis MEF: Modified Energy Factor 

### MMBtu: millionBtu Q-3

### Mt/a: megatons (1 6 metric tons) per year

NAPSA: National Appliance Parts Suppliers Association NAECA: National Appliance Energy Conservation Act NCYCLE: Cycles per year NEEP: Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership NEMS: National Energy Modeling System NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NMOC: Non-methane organic compound NES: National Energy Savings NWEEA: WashWise - Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance NOPR: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking NOx: nitrogen oxides NPV: net present value NYSE: New York Stock Exchange OIRA: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 0MB: Office of Management and Budget ORNL: Oak Ridge National Laboratory PBP: Payback period PEA: Pacific Energy Associates PECI: Portland Energy Conservation Inc. PG&E: Pacific Gas & Electric PNNL: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Q-4

### pwh: petawatt-hours (1 15 watt-hours)

Quads: quadrillion Btu R&D: Research and Development RECS: Residential Energy Consumption Survey, DOE/ETA publication 

### RECW: resource-efficient clothes washers RMC: remaining moisture content RPP: rebuttable payback period SEC: Securities and Exchange Commission S & P: Standard & Poor's Sat: saturation SDA: Soap and Detergent Association SDA&E: San Diego Gas & Electric SEC: Securities and Exchange Commission SG&A: Sales, General, & Administration SIC: Standard Industrial Classification S/L: saturationllifetime SMUD: Sacramento Municipal Utility District SO2: sulfur dioxide
srcconv: source conversion factor STOCKY: Stock of clothes washers SWA: shipment weighted average SD: standard deviation Q-5

### t: metric ton

THELMA: The High Efficiency Laundry Metering & Marketing Analysis

TM: 

### Trade mark TSD: Technical Support Document TUF: temperature use factor 

### UEC: Unitenergy consumption U.S.C.: United States Code V-axis: vertical axis WACC: Weighted Average Cost of Capital Working Group: Clothes Washer Consumer Analysis Working Group

Q-6

### APPENDIX R. LIFE-CYCLE-COST AND NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS USING THEMOST CURRENT RECS 1997ANDAEO 2000 DATA

.....................................................

................

.....

...............................

...........................................

.......................................

..................................

........................

..................................

...........................

..........................................................

.........................................

.................................

............................

.....................................

.................

........

..............

........

.............

...................... 

### R.1 INTRODUCTION R-l R. 1.1 How Updating RECS and AEO Data Affects the Analysis R-1 R. 1.1.1 Input Parameter Changes toLCC / Payback Spreadsheet R- 1 R. 1.1.2 Input Parameter Changes to NES/Shipment Spreadsheet

. . . .

### R-2 R.2 LIFE-CYCLE-COST &PAYBACK PERIOD R-2 R.2. 1 Life-Cycle-Cost Results R-3 R.2.2 Distribution Payback Results R-4 R.2.3 Rebuttable Payback Period Results R-4 R.2.4 Comparison of LCC &Payback Period Results R-5 R.3 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS (NES) 

### R-6 R.3. 1 National Energy and Water Savings Results R-6 R.3.2 Comparison of NES Results for AEO99IRECS93 and AEO2000/RECS97 Input Data R-8

LIST OF TABLES Table R.1 Summary of LCC Results R-3 Table R.2 Summary of Payback Period Results R-4 Table R.3 Rebuttable Presumption Payback in Years R-4 Table R.4 LCC for Trial Standard Level 3 R-5 

### TableR.5 Distribution Payback Periods for Trial Standard Level 3 R-5 

### Table R.6 Rebuttable Presumption Payback Periods for Trial Standard Level 3 R-5 

### Table R.7 Reference Case - All Parameters Set to Medium or Average R-6 Table R.8 NES Results: Proposed Rule (MEF=1 .04 in 2004 & MEF = 

### 1.26 in 2007)

. . .

### R-6 Table R.9 Efficiency Level: Energy and Water Savings (proposed rule, TSL 3) R-7 Table R.10 NES Results: Proposed rule (MEF = 

### 1.04 in 2004 & MEF = 

### 1.26 in 2007)

. . .

### R-8

LIST OF FIGURES Figure R. 1 Distribution of Life-Cycle-Costs Savings for an MEF of 1.26 R-3 Figure R.2 Distribution of Payback Periods for a MEF of 1.26 R-4

R-i

### APPENDIX R. LIFE-CYCLE-COSTANDNATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS USING THEMOST CURRENT RECS 1997ANDAEO 2000 DATA
R.1 INTRODUCTION Since the TSD was written for the NOPR, more updated data has become available from ETA, for both the Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS97) and for the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO2000). This appendix will show that the results and conclusions in the NOPR TSD are not affected significantly by the new data. R.1.1 How Updating RECS and AEO Data Affects the Analysis Updating analysis with more current RECS data and AEO fuel forecasts affects the inputs to the LCC and NES analysis. R.1.1.1 Input Parameter Changes to LCC / Payback Spreadsheet Changes due to RECS 

### The 1993 version of RECS sampled more households than the 1997 version. After culling out the households that did not have a clothes washer and a clothes dryer. The 1993 RECS gave a sample size of 4396 households. When the same criteria was used to determine a sample set from the 1997 RECS, 2833 households were included in the sample. Data from the RECS database used in the LCC analysis are: • marginal energy prices (both a distribution and average prices are used in the LCC spreadsheet), • cycles per year (based on the number of household occupants and then normalized to an average of 392 cycles per year to agree with the test procedure), • to separate households into having rural versus urban for purposes of determining water and wastewater removal expenses, differences in the percentages of households using the various fuel types. Changes due to AEO 

### The AEO data generated by a variation of the ETA's NEMS program, called NEMS-BRS provides a year by year forecast of fuel prices. This average fuel price forecast is used to escalate the marginal price as determined for the year of the RECS data. In other words, to determine a fuel price escalation rate.

R- 1

### R.1.1.2 Input Parameter Changes to NES/Shipment Spreadsheet

Changes due to RECS 

### TheNES spreadsheet does not use a distribution of fuel prices but does use an average marginal rate for each fuel type and this is determined from the RECS database of households having a washer and a dryer. Changes due to AEO 

### For the NES, updating to the AEO2000 data has an effect on the forecasted escalation of fuel prices including: electricity, natural gas, LPG and oil. This in turn affects shipments and the national energy savings. A change in forecasted shipments also effects the forecasted energy savings. As in the LCC analysis the fuel price escalation rate is determined from yearly AEO fuel price forecasts. NEMS-BRS forecasting model is updated every year and is used to determine the fuel price forecasts. Other internal changes to the latest version of NEMS-BRS also have an effect on the NES analysis. Among these is the heat rate (or source conversion factor) used to determine the source energy consumption. The heat rate varies from appliance to appliance as the average annual heat rate used depends on the daily and seasonal load profile for a particular appliance. The clothes washer load profile, uses the same load profile as specified for water heaters. This is due to water heating being the major load for a clothes washer. The NEMS-BRS heat rate includes the transmission and distribution losses. Heat rate projections differed significantly from the AEO 1999 projections. To be consistent with an updated NEMS-BRS model, the housing completions and housing stock are also updated with the latest data. There was no significant change in housing completions.
R.2 LIFE-CYCLE-COST & PAYBACK PERIOD Rather than redo the entire analysis with the updated RECS97 and AEO2000 data, the tables below show updated LCC results for only the standard level proposed in the NOPR (TSL 3). These results are compared to the results in the main body of the TSD which are based on RECS93 and AEO 1999.. (Each table is referenced to the equivalent table in chapter 7 of the TSD). All results shown here are for the reference AEO scenario, i.e., not high or low economic growth assumptions.

R-2

### R.2.1 Life-Cycle-Cost Results



### Figure R. 1 shows the distribution of life-cycle-costs using input data from RECS97 and AEO2000. The life-cycle-cost is for the second tier of the proposed standard (TSL 3) which takes effect in 2007.

10,000 Trials Forecast: LCC Difference Frequency Chart 156 Outliers 

### .032
.024

_________________ ___________________________________________ 

# II

__________________________ 

### 317

________________ 

### 237.7 1 -I 

### .016 158.5

. 

### rD .008 = 79.25 .000 0 ($1,250) ($750) ($250) $250 $750

Certainty is 81.66% from -Infinity to $0 $ Figure R.1 Distribution of Life-Cycle-Cost Savings for an MEF of 1.26
Table R.1 Summary of LCC Results Trial Change in LCC from Baseline Percent Std. MEF Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results with Level (values in $) LCC Less 0 10 25 50 75 

### 90 100 Mean than Baseline 1.O4MEF ($1,011) ($233) ($153) ($86) ($37) ($1) $116 ($105) 90 in 2004 

### 3 1.26 MEF ($2,784) ($701) ($444) ($216) ($49) $85 $620 ($269) 

### 82 in 2007 See '[able 7.6 for RECS 93 / AEO 99 version

R-3

### R.2.2 Distribution Payback Period Results



## 10,000 Trials Forecast: Payback (yrs) Frequency Chart 180 Outliers .046
.034

' - 

### 459
344.2 ll I -' 

### .023

_______ 

### 229.5

-



### = 

### .oiiI 

# 11ft 114.7 

# Miu11111 Mean
= .000 

# r

___ ttlUflIU.IIEJJJJIIJJJ,I

__ 0 

### 0.0 6.3 12.5 18.8 25.0 Figure R.2 Distribution of Payback Periods for a MEFof 1.26 Table R.2 Summary of Pavback Period Results Trial Payback Period in Years Standard MEF Shown by Percentiles of the Distribution of Results Level 0% 10% 25% 50% 75% 90% 100% Mean

1.O4MEF 0.0 0.9 1.9 3.5 5.8 9.2 182.7 4.6 3 in 2004

1.26 MEF 0.8 2.3 3.2 4.9 7.9 12.9 194.2 6.6 in 2007 See Table 7.9 for RECS 93 IAEO 99 version 

### R.2.3 Rebuttable Payback Period Results 'table R.3 Rebuttable 1"resumDtion 1-'avback in Years Market Share 91% 9% Standard Level 0% (MEF=O.860) 35% (MEF= 1.257) Weighted Payback

to new Standard Level to New Standard Level MEF 1.04 (in 2004) 2.7 NA 2.7 MEF = 1.26 (in 2007) 4.3 20.4 5.7 Note: NA = not applicable See Table 7.12 for RECS 93IAEO 99 version

R-4

### R.2.4 Comparison of LCC & Payback Period Results

Table R.4 below shows that there are no significant differences between the RECS93/AE099 and RECS97/AEO2000 values. The difference is within the variation in results from successive Monte Carlo simulations. Distribution payback period results, have a maximum difference in the mean payback period of 3%
Table R.4 LCC for Trial Standard Level 3

Level RECS93/AE099 RECS97/AEO2000

Mean Percent with

LCCLess than Baseline Mean Percent with LCC Less than Baseline 1.04 MEF in 2004 $ (103) 90 $ (105) 90 1.26 MEF in 2007 $ (260) 81 $ (269) 82

TableR.5 Distribution Payback Periods for Trial Standard Level 3

Level RECS93/AE099 RECS97/AEO2000

Median Mean Median Mean 1.04 MEF in 2004 3.5 4.6 3.5 4.6 1.26 MEF in 2007 5.0 6.8 4.9 6.6
Table R.6 Rebuttable Presumption Payback Periods for Trial Standard Level 3

Level Weighted Payback RECS93/AE099 RECS97/AEO2000 1.04 MEF in 2004 2.5 2.7 1.26 MEF in 2007 5.5 5.7

R-5

### R.3 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS (NES)

R.3.1 National Energy and Water Savings Results Shown below are tables that reproduce the results in Chapter 10 of the TSD, except that they use RECS97 and AEO2000 as inputs to the NES/Shipment spreadsheet. Each table is referenced to its equivalent in Chapter 10. Results are provided for each of the six trial standard levels considered. All results in the tables below are for the AEO reference case economic growth assumptions. All other parameters are set to medium or average. In other words, the main scenario is shown, not the sensitivity cases. Table R.7 Reference Case

-All Parameters Set to Medium or Average Trial Standard Level MEF Efficiency Improvement over the Base Case Energy Savings

Quads Water Savings

trillion gallons Net Present Value (NPV) (billion 1997$) 1.021 20% 2.09 0.52 3.76 2 1.089 25% 3.98 8.93 14.30 4 1.257 35% 5.92 12.71 16.89 5 1.362 40% 5.95 12.71 16.75 6 1.634 50% 7.44 10.66 10.94 3 1.04 in2004 1.26 in2007 22%

35% 5.42 11.36 15.33 See Table 10.7 for RECS 93 / AEO 99 version


### Table R.8 NESResults: Proposed rule (MIEF= 1.04 in 2004 &MFF=1.26 in 2007) Cost and Net Present Values Discounted from 2004 at 7% real to 1997 (in billion 1997$) Total Energy & Water Savings 27.09 Net equipment Cost 11.77 Net Present Benefit 15.33 

### Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.3 See Table 10.8 for RECS 93 / AEO 99 version

R-6

### Table R.9 Efficiency Level: Energy and Water Savings (proposed rule, TSL 3) Energy Saving in Quads Water Saving Total Elec Gas Oil LPG (Trillion gals) From 2004 to 2010 0.41 0.26 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.60



### to 2020 2.52 1.51 0.90 0.06 0.04 4.91 to 2030 5.42 3.21 1.98 0.13 0.10 11.36 See Table 10.9 for RECS 93 / AEO 99 version



# 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 8.00 I I 

## Price Change

Energy & Water Saving 

# 6.00 NetSaving 

# H Ii II I III

# illIi Iii ;;4jI ri iii ji

## j'i UI II III III IIL_Il-ITTI 

# 4.00 ! 1i

- I 

# J]1111flh1R 2.00 

# flhJ M

0.00 

# fflj j fl t fflfrThi
-2.00 -4.00 Figure R.3 Annual Cost and Savings for the Proposed Clothes Washer Rule (TSL 3)

R-7

### R.3.2 Comparison of NES Results for AE099 and AEO2000 Input Data

Table R.10 NESResults: Proposed rule (MEF= 1.04 in 2004 & MEF=1.26 in 2007) Cost and Net Present Values Discounted from 2004 at 7% real to 1997 (in billion 1997$)

_______________________ AE099, RECS93 AEO2000, RECS97 ___________ 

### % change Total Energy & Water
Savings 

### 27.16

________________ 

### 27.09 -0.26% Net equipment Cost 11.86 11.77 -0.76% Net Present Benefit 15.30 15.33 0.20% Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.3 2.3 0.0% As shown in Table R. 10 above for the proposed trial standard (TSL 3), differences in the results are less than 1%, and therefore, not significant.

R-8

## DOEIEA-1344



# ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL

CLOTHES WASHERS

December 2000

T lp



## U.S.Department of Energy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Office of Building Research and Standards Washington, DC 20585

### ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS

...................................................

...............................................

.................

..........................................

.............................................

...........................................

......................

....................

...................................................

.................................................

............................................

...............................................

..........................................

.................................

.................................

............................

..............................

.....................................

.....................................

..............................................

...............................................

..........................................

...........................................

.............

..................................

...................................

...............................

.....................

...................................

..........

.............................................

........................................

..................................

...................................

.............................. 

### TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION EA-1 2. PURPOSE AND NEED EA-l 3. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION EA-2 3.1 No Action Alternative EA-2 3.2 Proposed Standard EA-2 3.3 Alternative Standards EA-3 3.4 Impacts of Proposed and Alternative Standards EA-3
4. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT EA-4 4.1 Geography EA-4 4.2 Air Resources EA-4 4.2.1 Assumptions EA-5 4.2.2 Methods EA-5 4.2.2.1 Carbon EA-5 4.2.2.2 Power Sector NO EA-6 4.2.2.3 Power SectorSO2 EA-6 4.2.2.4 Household NO and SO2 EA-6 4.2.2.5Fuel-Cycle Emissions EA-6 4.2.2.6 Interpolation EA-7 4.2.2.7 Extrapolation EA-7 4.3 Water Resources EA-7 4.4 Socioeconomics EA-7 4.5 Environmental Justice EA-8 4.6 Energy Consumption EA-8 5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION EA-8 5.1 Air Quality / Emissions Impacts EA-8 5.1.1 Power Sector Emissions EA-8 5.1.2 Residential Sector Emissions EA-1 1 5.1.3 Power and Residential Sector Emissions EA-14 5.1.4 Fuel-Cycle Emissions EA-15 5.1.5 High and Low Sensitivity Analysis for Air Emissions EA-15 5.2 Water Resources EA-19 5.3 Wetlands / Endangered and Threatened Species / Cultural Resources EA-21 5.4 Socioeconomic Impacts EA-21 5.5 Environmental Justice Impacts EA-21 5.6 Energy Consumption Impacts EA-21 5.7 Summary of Environmental Impacts EA-22

### APPENDIX EA- 1 Emission Factors for Combustion from Natural Gas, LPG, and Oil Fired Residential Water Heaters and Clothes Dryers

........... 

### EA. 1-i

............................................

...............................................

..................................

...........................

........

...........

..........

.....................................................

.....................................................

................................

........................

........................

........................

...........................

...........................................

.......................

.......................................................

....... 

### APPENDIX EA-2 Upstream Emission Factors from Coal and Natural Gas

Production EA.2-i APPENDIX EA-3 Interpolation of Utility and Environmental Results from NEMS-BRS

Output EA.3-i

TABLES Table 1 Summary of the Analysis Results EA-4 Table 2 Power Sector Emissions for all Standards EA-9 Table 3 Cumulative Emissions Reductions through 2020: Power Sector EA-11 Table 4 Change in Annual Household Emissions for MEF Standards EA-12 Table5 Cumulative Emissions Reductions through 2020: Households EA-13 Table 6 Cumulative Emissions Reductions through 2020: Household and Power

Sectors EA-14 Table 7 Cumulative Emissions Reductions through 2030: Household and Power

Sectors EA-14 Table 8 High and Low Economic Growth: Annual Power Sector Emissions for Proposed

Standard (Trial Standard Level 3) EA- 16 Table 9 High and Low Price Elasticity Scenarios: Annual Power Sector Emissions for

Proposed Standard (Trial Standard Level 3) EA- 17 Table 10 High and Low Economic Growth Change in Annual Household Emissions for

Proposed Standard (Trial Standard Level 3) EA-18 Table 11 High and Low Price Elasticity: Change in Annual Household Emissions for

Proposed Standard (Trial Standard Level 3) EA-18 Table 12 Cumulative Power Sector and Household Emission Reductions for High & Low

Economic Growth Sensitivities to 2030 EA-19 Table 13 Cumulative Power Sector and Household Emission Reductions with Elasticity

Sensitivities to 2030 EA-19 Table 14 Cumulative Reduction in Water Use to 2030 EA-20 Table 15 Cumulative Water Reduction for High & Low Economic Growth Sensitivities to

2030 EA-20 Table 16 Cumulative Water Reduction with Elasticity Sensitivities to 2030 EA-20 Table 17 Cumulative Energy Savings for Proposed Standard (Trial Standard Level 3)EA-22

### APPENDIX TABLES

................................

....................................

..............................................

.....

....... 

### Table EA- 1.1 Estimated National Average Emission Factors for Household Fuel Combustion of

Natural Gas, Fuel Oil#2, and LPG EA. 1-2 Table EA-2. 1 Estimated Upstream Emission Factors and Relative Percentages to Direct Power

Plant Combustion Emissions EA.2-2

APPENDIX FIGURES Figure EA-3. 1 a An Example of the Interpolation of a Trial Standard Level: Difference in

Coal Capacity EA.3-4 Figure EA-3.lb Close-Up of the Interpolation of Trial Standard Level X2 from Xl EA.3-5 Figure EA-3.2 Example of Trial Standard Level Xl: Marginal NO Emissions EA.3-6

### ABBREVIATIONSANDACRONYMS

Act or EPCA: Part B of Title ifi of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act, Public Law 95-6 19, the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, Public Law 100-12, the National Appliance Energy ConservationAmendments of 1988, PublicLaw 100-357, andtheEnergyPolicyActof 1992, Public Law 102-486 AEO: Annual Energy Outlook, DOE/EIA publication BRS: DOE's Building Research and Standards office BTU: British Thermal Unit C: carbon DOE: Department of Energy EA: Environmental Assessment EF: Energy Factor EIA: Energy Information Administration EJ: exajoule (1018 joules) 

### EPCA: Energy Policy and Conservation Act GJ: gigajoule (l0 joules) kt/a: thousand metric tons per year kWh: kilowatt-hour LCC: Life-Cycle Cost LPG: liquified petroleum gas MEF: Modified Energy Factor (cu. ft. / kWh per cycle) Mt/a: millions of metric tons per year NAECA: National Appliance Energy Conservation Act NEMS: National Energy Modeling System

### NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NES: National Energy Savings NOPR:Notice of Proposed Rulemaking NON: nitrogen oxides PBP: Payback period Quad: quadrillion Btu RIA: Regulatory Impact Analysis SO2: sulfur dioxide t: metric ton TSL: Trial Standard Level TSD: Technical Support Document TWh: terawatt-hour U.S.C.: United States Code

### 1.0 INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) prepared this clothes washer environmental assessment (EA) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and the Department of Energy's regulations for compliance with NEPA (10 CFR Part 1021). On November 14, 1994, DOE published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR). 59 FR 56423. On November 19, 1998, DOE published a Supplemental ANOPR (Hereafter referred to as the 1998 Supplemental ANOPR.). 63 FR 64344. On October5,2000, DOE published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR or proposed rule) for energy efficiency standards. 65 FR 59550. For the NOPR, we analyzed the energy savings, benefits and burdens of amended energy conservation standards for clothes washers and shared the results of these analyses with all stakeholders. Based on these analyses, several of the major stakeholders, including clothes washer manufacturers and energy efficiency advocates, submitted to the Department ajoint proposal for the highest standard level which they believed to be technically feasible and economically justified. (Hereafter referred as the Joint Comment). Based on our review of the Joint Comment, we found the proposed standards technically feasible and economically justified. Therefore, the Department is adopting the energy conservation standards for clothes washers at Trial Standard Level (TSL) 3 (The clothes washer energy standards for Top Loading, Standard (1.6 ft.3 or greater capacity) and Front Loading class clothes washers shall be 1.04 modified energy factor (MEF) in 1/1/2004 and 1.26 MEF in 1/1/2007.). DOE proposed the clothes washer efficiency standards pursuant to Part B of Title ifi of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law (P.L.) 94-163, as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act, P.L. 95-619, by the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, P.L. 100-12, by the National Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments of 1988, P.L. 100-357, and the Energy Policy Act of 1992, P.L. 102486a (the Act or EPCA), which created the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products other than Automobiles. The proposed clothes washer efficiency standard affects consumers and manufacturers of residential clothes washers.
2.0 PURPOSEANI NEED The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, specifies that the Department must consider, for new or amended conservation standards, those standards that "achieve the maximum
aPt B of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act, the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, the National Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments of 1988, and the Energy Policy Act of 1992, is referred to in this notice as the Act." Part B of Title III is codified at 42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq. Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act only, is referred to in this notice as the National Energy Conservation Policy Act. EA- 1

### improvement in energy efficiency which the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and

economically justified" and which will "result in significant conservation of energy." Accordingly, DOE' s proposed rule would be amending the energy conservation standard for residential clothes washers. Consistent with this requirement, DOE's purpose in the proposed action is to reduce the consumption of energy used by clothes washers in the United States (U.S.). DOE's discretion is in deciding the level for a minimum efficiency standard, not if there should be one.
3.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THEPROPOSED ACTION A DOE clothes washer standard analysis includes the energy saved by the clothes washer itself (always electrical), the energy used in an electric, gas, LPG or oil-fired water heater to heat water for the clothes washer, and the energy required by a clothes dryer (electric, gas or LPG) to remove the water remaining in laundry after a completed wash cycle. The metric used to measure the efficiency is called the Modified Efficiency Factor (MEF). Details are provided in the Clothes Washer Technical Support Document (TSD).1 After an initial analysis of ten different efficiency levels, the analysis was reduced to six possible TSLs. Of these, DOE proposes to set a clothes washer standard at TSL 3. 3.1 NoAction Alternative Under this alternative DOE would not publish a new minimum energy efficiency standard for clothes washers. By taking no action, DOE would be in violation of EPCA, which requires (1) DOE to determine whether to amend the statutory standard, and (2) that a minimum standard be set at a level that 'shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically justified." EPCA, §325(l)(2)(A), 42 U.S.C. §6295(l)(2)(A). In addition to analyzing a baseline case in the TSD, a Draft Clothes Washer Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) was published that examines the no action alternative as well as other non-mandatory efficiency standards or voluntary incentive programs. It was determined in this report that the "no action" alternative would result in less energy reductions than the proposed standard. If"no action" were taken, the minimum efficiency requirement would remain at its current level, an Energy Factor (EF) of 1.18. Unlike the proposed MEF, the EF does not account for energy use in the clothes dryer. The current baseline value for EF corresponds to an MEF of 0.817 kWhlcycle, a lower minimum efficiency level than any other level being considered. 3.2 Proposed Standard The major stakeholders, including manufacturers and energy efficiency advocates, have jointly submitted a proposed clothes washer efficiency standard to DOE that they feel is technically feasible and economically justified. This proposed clothes washer efficiency standard will provide significant energy savings and water savings to the nation. The proposed standard (TSL 3) would EA-2

### go into effect in two stages, with a lower required improved efficiency (MEF of 1.04) by the year

2004 and a higher efficiency level (MEF of 1.26) by the year 2007. Additional details of the proposed TSL 3 and other TSL's are provided in the Clothes Washer TSD1. The TSD is available on a DOE internet site at http:llwww.eren.doe.gov/buildings/codes_standards/applbrf/clwasher.html. The justification for selecting the proposed standard, TSL 3, over the other trial standard levels considered is explained in Section V.F, conclusions of the October5,2000 Federal Register Notice, page 59580. This Federal Register notice is also available on a DOE internet site at http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/codes_standards/applbrf/clwasher.html under "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking." 3.3 Alternative Standards This EA presents the results of the environmental impacts from six clotheswasher efficiency trial standards. Each standard is an alternative action, and is compared against the no-action alternative. In the course of a typical appliance rulemaking, all alternatives are initially considered. To simplify the analysis for the final detailed selection process, some alternatives are eliminated from further analysis. Of the ten beginning standard levels, six have been analyzed in detail in this EA and four were eliminated from further analysis. Of the four eliminated, three trial standard levels with MEF's of 0.86(5%energy reduction), 0.908 (10% energy reduction) and 0.961 (15% energy were eliminated from further consideration because it was determined that an MEF of 1.021(20% energy reduction) was technically feasible and economically justified, making further consideration of the less efficient trial levels unnecessary. The fourth trial standard with a MEF of 1.485 (energy reduction of45%)was eliminated due to its significantly higher increase in clothes washer retail price, life-cycle-cost and payback period. It is required that the maximum technically achievable level, in this case MEF of 1.634 (representing reduced energy use of 50%), be retained as part of the analysis. 3.4 Impacts of Proposed and Alternative Standards The NOPR established that DOE determined that significant energy savings could be achieved through the adoption of an amended conservation standard for clothes washers. DOE considers the impacts of standards beginning with the most efficient level. Table 1 includes a summary of the analysis results to aid the reader in the discussion of the benefits and burdens for the different trial standard levels. DOE proposes to set a clothes washer standard at TSL 3 which is felt to be technically feasible and economically justified. Additional information on the six trial standard levels is provided in Section5of this EA, Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action.

EA-3

### Table 1.--Summary of the Analysis Results* Tra1 Sltndard LevI 6 5 4 3 2 1 1EF

_____________________________________ 1.63

_________________ 1.26

________________ 1 26 I 08 in 2004. I 26 LII 2007 .09 102 Percejit Rediction in Eiterv Use 51)

______________ 4(1 35 22in 2(104 in 2007 25 211 'JotalEnergy Saved Oiirids) 7.52 ______________ 093 ______________

5.99 52 ______________ 4.04 ____________

2.12 Witer Savings lirihion aUons1 ItI.85 204 12.94 11.59 9.09 (t53 Em ions Carbon Equivalent (MI) 134.o 1(173 1116.2 95.1 70.9 us. I 1th(kcl .164 283.1 28{16 253.5 1939 I15 SO.,ktl 11.41 20.31 2031 28.11 20.(I •i1i * Values are all cummulative to 2030. 

### 4.0 DESCRIPTION OFTHEAFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 4.1 Geography Theclothes washer standard that DOE is proposing would apply to all50states and U.S. territories. 4.2 Air Resources The primary focus of the EA is the effect of proposed efficiency standards on air resources. For this analysis, the EA uses a variant of DOE, Energy Information Administration's (DOEIEIA) National Energy Modeling System (NEMS), called NEMS-BRS (BRS is DOE' s Building Researchand Standards office), plus some additional analysis not using NEMS-BRS to determine the nonpower sector air emissions)' The environmental analysis is similar to the utility sector analysis described in Chapter 12 of the Clothes Washer TSD.' Outputs of the environmental analysis are in a format similar to the results of the DOEIEIA'sAnnual Energy Outlook 1999(AEO99).3 For each of the standard levels, DOE calculated total power sector emissions based on output from NEMS-BRS. DOE also conducted some additional analysis to calculate household emissions which are not covered by NEMS-BRS. The EA considers only two pollutants, nitrogen oxides (NO) and sulfur dioxide (SO2), and one emission, carbon (C). Because emissions of SO2 from power plants are capped by clean air legislation, physical emissions of this pollutant from electricity generation will be only minimally affected by possible clothes washer standards. The maximum SO2 allowed by law will most likely still be produced, but because SO2 emissions are traded, and if SO2 emissions are lowered due to less power generation, then the cost of SO2 emission credits may decrease slightly. Therefore, the EA does not consider changes in power sector SO2 emissions, although it does household emissions savings. The only form of carbon tracked by NEMS-BRS is
bFor more information on NEMS, refer to the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration documentation. A useful summary isNational Energy Modeling System: An Overview 199 DOEIETA-058 1(98), February 1998. DOE/ETA approves use of the name NEMS to describe only an official version of the model without any modification to code or data. EA-4

### carbon dioxide (C02), so the carbon discussed in this analysis is only in the form of C02, but is

reported as mass of elemental carbon, in keeping with standard practice. 4.2.1 Assumptions The EA uses the same basic assumptions as AE099 and models the changes resulting from standards as variations from current policy. For example, the emissions characteristics of an electricity generating plant in the environmental analysis are the same as those used in AE099, although the fuel mix used for generation and the construction program for new plants may deviate slightly as a result of reduced generation requirements under the standard, which in turn affects air emission results. As with the utility impact analysis in Chapter 12 of the TSD', the environmental emissions effects are assumed to be linear in the range of the standards decrements and results are extrapolated. The EA also includes a sensitivity analysis for the proposed standard level, using the High and Low Economic Growth scenarios of NEMS-BRS. As described in Chapter 12 of the TSD', these scenarios cover a range of macro-economic growth assumptions. In addition, a separate sensitivity assuming high and low price elasticities are analyzed. The high and low price sensitivities have an effect on the magnitude of clothes washer shipments. Both sensitivity analyses are done for the case of the proposed standard level (TSL 3) only. Sensitivities were not done for all possible standard levels as they have been eliminated based on the results of the reference scenario.
4.2.2 Methods 4.2.2.1 Carbon A detailed carbon module tracks carbon emissions in NEMS-BRS. The Carbon Module provides good results because it covers all sectors of the economy and their interactions. Because NEMS-BRS tracks carbon emissions based on the total energy consumption and produces comprehensive estimates of the benefits of proposed standards, actual household emissions are included and no external analysis is necessary. NEMS-BRS itself does not account for potential carbon savings that result from upstream processes, as described in the fuel-cycle section below. Past experience with NEMS-BRS carbon results from power generation suggests that using marginal emissions estimates are more accurate than emissions based on simple forecast average factors for analysis of proposed appliance standards. First, the marginal fuel displaced by reduced generation as a result of proposed standards tends to be natural gas, which releases less carbon emissions than coal. Second, lowered electricity demand tends to slow down the construction of power generation capacity, thereby slowing improvement in energy conversion efficiency and emissions rates that typically result from deployment of newer technology.

EA-5

### 4.2.2.2 Power Sector NO

NEMS-BRS reports two airborne pollutant emissions, NO and SO2. Power sector NO results are based on forecasts of compliance with existing legislation at the time AE099 was released and have proven stable and reasonable. 4.2.2.3 Power Sector SO2 The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 set an SO2emissions cap on all power generation, but permits flexibility among generators through the use of emissions allowances and tradable permits. SO2 trading tends to imply that physical emissions effects of a standard will be zero because emissions will always be at, or near, the ceiling. There is virtually no real possible SO2 environmental benefit from electricity conservation as long as there is enforcement of the emissions ceiling. A slight economic benefit may result only if coal generation falls and the reduced demand for SO2 emission allowances lowers the allowance price. Because the effects considered here are too small to deliver reasonable estimates, the EA does not consider this possibility.
4.2.2.4 Household NO and SO2 While NEMS-BRS has an algorithm for estimating emissions of NO and SO2 from power generation, it does not estimate household emissions of these pollutants. Because households use natural gas, fuel oil, and LPG, the residential sector also contributes to NO and SO2 emissions. This analysis therefore includes separate estimates of the effect of standards on household NO and SO2 emissions, based on simple emissions factors derived from general literature. Although small, household SO2 emissions savings are reported because the SO2 emissions caps do not apply to the residential sector. Appendix BA-i provides a detailed description of the methodology for deriving the emissions factors for residential combustion. 4.2.2.5Fuel-Cycle Emissions NEMS-BRS does not account for upstream emissions from energy losses during coal and natural gas production. The upstream processes include the mining of coal or extraction of natural gas, physical preparatory and cleaning processes, and transportation to the power plant. Appendix EA-2 shows upstream emission estimates for carbon, SO2, and NOR, along with the emissions factors and the relative percentage of upstream emissions to power plant emissions. Appendix EA-2 also provides a detailed description of the methodology used to derive these estimates. Although DOE does not report actual estimates of the effects of standards, the material in Appendix EA-2 provides the reader with a feel for the possible magnitude of upstream effects. According to the study by M.A. DeLuchi, approximately 8% of total coal fuel cycle carbon, NOR, or SO2 emissions are attributed to upstream coal production. The equivalent value for gas is 14%.

EA-6

### 4.2.2.6 Interpolation

Because the size of the energy savings from standards are too small to produce stable power sector results in NEMS-BRS, it has been necessary to estimate results in the range of the standard levels' effects using interpolation. Appendix EA-3 describes the interpolation methodology in detail. A series of cases is executed in which the Residential Demand Module's clothes washer, clothes dryer and water heater loads are reduced for each of the fuel types (electricity, gas, oil and LPG) at incrementally higher savings than the standards levels. Actual standard level savings are then derived from these outputs. 4.2.2.7 Extrapolation The current time horizon of NEMS-BRS is 2020 (modeling a 1 7-year period, 2004-2020), yet other parts of the appliance energy efficiency work reach 2030. As described in the utility analysis in Chapter 12 of the TSD, it is not feasible to extend the forecast period of NEMS-BRS for the purposes of this analysis, nor does EIA have an approved method for extrapolation of many outputs beyond 2020; therefore, to ensure consistency all extrapolations beyond 2020 presented here are simple replications of year 2020 results. As with the AE099 Reference Case in general, the implicit assumption is that the regulatory environment does not deviate from the current known situation during the extrapolation period. Only changes that have been announced with date-certain introduction are included in NEMS-BRS. Consistent with this assumption, the household emissions factors used do not change in either the forecast or the extrapolation periods because little compelling evidence of tightening emissions standards for household appliances was forthcoming in the research described in Appendix EA- 1. To emphasize the extrapolated results wherever they appear, they are shaded in grey to distinguish them from actual NEMS-BRS output. 4.3 Water Resources The efficiency level and effective dates of the proposed rulemaking (TSL 3) are analyzed as well as the nine originally considered MEF standard levels. The original nine MEF values considered are: 0.860, 0.908, 0.961, 1.021, 1.089, 1.257, 1.362, 1.485, and 1.634. Water usage reduction per washer was obtained from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) data showing the amount of water use at each clothes washer efficiency level. The amount of national water usage reduction is determined by using a spreadsheet model that forecasts shipments and national energy savings (NES). The NES/Shipments model is described in detail in Chapters 9 and 10 of the Clothes Washer TSD accompanying the NOPR. 4.4 Socioeconomics As part of the rulemaking process, the socioeconomic effect on consumers was analyzed. Analysis included determining the differences in life-cycle cost for the standard levels analyzed. See Chapter 7 and Appendix G of the TSD. In addition, a conjoint analysis and focus groups provided information on consumer preferences relating to clothes washers. See Chapter 8 and Appendix J of the TSD. EA-7

### 4.5 Environmental Justice

A consideration of Environmental Justice is made pursuant to Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. The Executive Order requires federal agencies to assess whether a proposed federalaction causes any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on lowincome or minority populations. The proposed action causes no such adverse impacts. 4.6 Energy Consumption Data from manufacturer questionnaires were used as input to a NES/Shipment spreadsheet model that forecasted shipment of clothes washers to the year 2030 and determined the savings of energy consumption to the nation both annually and cumulatively. Detail is provided in Chapters 4, 9 and 10 of the Clothes Washer TSD, published together with the NOPR. A sophisticated NES/Shipments spreadsheet model is described in the Clothes Washer TSD. This spreadsheet model forecasts the national shipments and energy use of clothes washers with and without standards.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 5.1 Air Quality/Emissions Impacts 5.1.1 Power Sector Emissions Table 2 shows the annual power sector carbon and NO emissions for the proposed and alternative standard levels. The total carbon emission reductions range up to5.2MtJa in 2020. NO emissions reductions reach up to 9.8 kt/a in 2020. Cumulative emissions savings for the power sector over the 17-year period modeled are listed in Table 3. All of the nine originally considered MEFs are shown, as well as the proposed two stage standard level and the reference case. The six TSL's selected for closer analysis are labeled as TSL 1 through 6. Of these, TSL 3 is being proposed. See details on the selection process in the Clothes Washer TSD. In Table 3 the lowest MEF of 0.860 represents a5%reduction in energy use, whereas the largest MEF, 1.634, represents a50%reduction in energy use over a baseline energy use level of 0.817, assumed to be equivalent to the current minimum clothes washer efficiency requirement. In this analysis, the reference case refers to cases with respect to the AE099 Reference Case. All trial standard levels are compared to the reference case, which represents the no action alternative. This is also referred to as the baseline case, EF level of 1.18 and MEF level of 0.817.

EA-8Table 2. Power Sector Emissions for all Standards

NEMS-ERS Results AE099 Ref. Case - Proposed Standards Absolute Values of Emissions Emission Reductions as Compared to the No Action Alternative 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 AE099 Reference Case (No Action Alternative, MEF = 0.817) Exirapolation Carbon (Mt/a)1'3 588.9 612.9 653.2 704.6 744.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO(kt/a)2'3 4191.2 3547.1 3665 3819.2 3882.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Proposed Standard Levels MEF = 0.860 Carbon (Mt/a) 588.9 612.9 653.1 704.5 744.4 Carbon (Mt/a) 0 0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 NO (ktla) 4191.2 3546.9 3664.8 3818.8 3882.4 NO (ktla) 0 -0.2 -0.3 -0.5 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 MEF = 0.908 Carbon (Mt/a) 588.9 612.8 653 704.2 744 Carbon (Mt/a) 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 NO(ktJa) 4191.2 3546.5 3664.2 3817.7 3881.6 NO(kt/a) 0 -0.6 -0.8 -1.5 -1.2 -1.2 -L2 MEF = 0.961 Carbon (Mt/a) 588.9 612.7 652.8 703.8 743.5 Carbon (Mt/a) 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.8 -1.1 -1.1 -1.1 NO (kt/a) 4191.2 3546 3663.6 3816.6 3880.7 NO (ktla) 0 -1.1 -1.5 -2.6 -2.1 2.1 -2.1 MEF = 1.021 Trial Standard Level 1 Carbon (Mt/a) 588.9 612.7 652.7 703.7 743.3 Carbon(Mt/a) 0 -0.2 -0.5 -0.9 -1.3 j NO(ktJa) 4191.2 3545.8 3663.3 3816.1 3880.3 NO(ktJa) 0 -1.3 -1.8 -3.1 -2.4 -2.4 -2.4 MEF = 1.089 Trial Standard Level 2 Carbon (Mt/a) 588.9 612.5 652.3 702.9 742.3 Carbon(MtJa) 0 -0.4 -0.9 -1.7 -2.3 23 -2.3 NO(kt/a) 4191.2 3544.3 3662.1 3813.4 3879 NO(kt/a) 0 -2.8 -2.9 -5.8 -3.8 ,38 EA-9lame
. rower Sector missions for all Standards continued)

NEMS-BRS Results Absolute Values of Emissions AE099 Ref. Case

-Proposed Standards Emission Reductions as Compared to the No Action Alternative 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 MEF=1.257 Trial StandardLevel 4 Extrapolation Carbon(MtJa) 588.9 612.3 651.7 701.8 740.8 Carbon(Mt/a) 0 -0.6 -1.5 -2.8 -3.8 -3,8 -3.8 NO (kt/a) 4191.2 3544 3660 3810.2 3876.2 NO (ktla) 0 -3.1 -5 -9.1 -6.5

- -5,5 MEF=1.362 Trial StandardLevel5 Carbon (MtJa) 588.9 612.2 651.7 701.8 740.8 Carbon (Mt/a) 0 -0.7 -1.5 -2.8 -3.8 -3, -3,8 NO(ktJa) 4191.2 3542.8 3660.1 3809.8 3876.2 NO (ktla) 0 -4.2 -5 -9.4 -6.5 -6. -6.5 MEF= 1.485 Carbon (Mt/a) 588.9 612 651.5 701.2 739.7 Carbon (Mt/a) 0 -0.9 -1.7 -3.4 -4.9 4,9 .49 NO(kt/a) 4191.2 3541.3 3659.9 3807.6 3873.6 NO(ktJa) 0 -5.8 -5J -11.6 -9.1 -9J -9.1 MEF=1.634 Trial Standard Level 6 Carbon (Mt/a) 5889 611.9 65L4 700.9 739.4 Carbon(Mt/a) 0 -1 -1.8 -3.7 -5.2 '7 -5.2 NO (kti'a) 4191.2 35408 3659.5 3806.8 3872.9 NO (kt/a) 0 -6.3 -5.5 -12.5 -9.8 ,g 9 PROPOSED LEVEL: MEF =1.04 in 2004 & 1.26 in 2007 (TSL 3) Carbon(Mt/a) 588.9 612.7 652.1 702.2 741 Carbon(MtJa) 0 -0.2 -1.1 -2.4 -3.6 36 -3.6 NO, (kt/a) 4191.2 3545.5 3661.2 3811.4 3876.1 NO, ktJa 0 -1.3 -3.9 -7.8 -6.6 -66 -6fuomparaie to iaoieA1? 01AiU t.iectnc enerators 2 Comparable to Table A8 of AE099: Emissions All results to metric tons (t), equivalent to 1.1 short tons

EA- 10

### Table 3. Cumulative Emissions Reductions through 2020: Power Sector MEF (cu.ft. /kWh per cycle) E i i msson 0.86 0.908 0.961 1.021 1.089 1.257 1.362 1.485 1.634 1.04 in 2004 1.26 in 2007 TSL1 TSL2 TSL4 TSL5 TSL6 TSL3 (PROPOSED

_____________ ______ ______ ______ _______ MEF) Carbon (Mt) 1.9 5.8 10.1 12 ______ 22.2 _______

36.3 ______

36.9 ______

44.8 48.1 29.8 NO (kt) 6.2 19.1 33.3 39.6 72.2 114 116.3 144.8 155.5 93.5 

### 5.1.2 Residential Sector (Household) Emissions In the emissions reductions analysis, reductions in emissions resulting from a clothes washer standard, are separated into two parts: power sector and residential. The power sector consists of emissions emitted outside of the household and include primarily emissions generated at power plants used to generate electricity. Residential sector emissions (also referred to as household emissions) are those emitted physically at the residence. All emissions due to the generation of electricity are considered power sector. All emissions due to combustion at the physical location of the residence are considered residential sector emissions. Included as part of the clothes washer measure of energy use, is the energy needed to heat the water that is used by the clothes washer and the energy used to dry the clothes in the clothes dryer. This is in addition to the electrical energy used to run the washer and dryer electric motors. Where a natural gas, oil or LPG fuel is used by the water heater, combustion emissions are emitted at the residence or household. Similarly, for those households having a gas-fired clothes dryer, emissions from the dryer's gas burner are also located at the residence. Emissions at the location of the residence are referred to as residential sector emissions. Details on the emission factors for combustion from natural gas, LPG, and oil-fired residential water heaters and clothes dryers are provided in Appendix EA- 1. Total household carbon, NO and SO2 emissions savings are presented in Table 4 for all MEF standard levels. These figures represent the sum of emissions reductions that result from reduced combustion of natural gas, fuel oil and LPG at residences due to the different trial standard levels. The annual emissions savings in 2020 range from 0.06 to 1.73 MtJa for carbon, 0.21 to 5.59ktla for NO and 0.06 to1.59ktla for SO2. These savings are in addition to the power sector savings reported above. Table5shows cumulative emissions savings for households over the 17-year period (2004- 2020) modeled in NEMS-BRS.

EA- 11

### Table 4. Change in Annual Household Emissions for MEF Standards

Year 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 MEF= 0.860 Extrapolation Carbon (Mt/a) 0 0 -0.03 -0.05 -0.06 41.06 1.06 NO(kt/a 0 0 -0.1 -0.18 -0.21 -0,21 -0.21 SO2 (ktia) 0 0 -0.03 -0.05 -0.06 1 -0.{)6 -006 MEF = 0.908 Carbon (MtJa) 0 0 -0.11 -0.19 -0.23 i -0.23 -023 NO (ktla) 0 -0.11 -0.4 -0.69 -0.82 -0.82 -0.82 SO2 (kt/a) 0 0 -0.12 -0.2 -0.24 -0.24 -0.24 MEF =0.961 Carbon (Mt/a) 0 -0.1 -0.23 -0.38 -0.46 -046 -0.46 NO(kt/a) 0 -0.23 -0.8 -1.39 -1.66 -1.66 -161) SO2 (kt/a) 0 -0.1 -0.25 -0.42 -0.51 

### :! -0,51 -0.51 MEF= 1.021 TrialStandardLevel 1 Carbon (Mt/a) 0 -0.1 -0.33 -0.56 -0.67 I -0,67 -0.67 NO(kt/a) 0 -0.35 -1.21 -2.12 -2.57 -2.57 -2.57 S02(ktla) 0 -0.2 -0.7 -1.27 -1.59 -1.59 -1.59 MEF = 1.089 Trial StandardLevel2 Carbon (Mt/a) 0 -0.18 -0.61 -1.05 -1.28 -1.28 -I.2 NO(kt/a) 0 -0.56 -1.97 -3.44 -4.17 -4.17 -4.17 502 (kt/a) 0 -0.2 -0.69 -1.24 -1.52

, -1.52 -1.52 MEF= 1.257 Trial Standard Level 4 Carbon (Mt/a) 0 -0.22 -0.74 -1.3 -1.6 -1,6 -1,6 NO (kt/a) 0 -0.67 -2.31 -4.13 -5.08 -5.08 -5.08 SO,(kt/a) 0 -0.2 -0.69 -1.24 -1.52 -1.52 -l.52 MEF=1.326 Trial Standard Level 5 Carbon (Mt/a) 0 -0.22 -0.74 -1.29 -1.6

# .1 -1.6 -1.6 NO (kt/a) 0 -0.67 -2.31 -4.14 -5.09 -5.09 -5.09 SO1 (ktla) 0 -0.2 -0.69 -1.24 -1.52 I -1.52 -1.52

EA- 12

### Table 4. Change in Annual Household Emissions forMEFStandards (Continued)

Year 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 MEF = 1.485 Extrapolal ion Carbon (MtJa) 0 -0.23 -0.75 -1.34 -1.68 -1.68 -L68 NO (ktla) 0 -0.69 -2.39 -4.34 -5.43 -5.43 -5.43 SO2 (kt/a) 0 -0.2 -0.69 -1.25 -1.56 -1.56

- .56 MEF = 1.634 Trial Standard Level 6 Carbon (MtJa) 0 -0.24 -0.77 -1.38 -1.73

-I .73

-I .73 NO (ktla) 0 -0.71 -2.45 -4.46 -5.59 -5,59 -5.59 SO2 (kt/a) 0 -0.2 -0.7 -1.27 -1.59 -1.5.9 -1.59 PROPOSED MEF = 1.04in 2004 & 1.26 in 2007 TrialStandard Level 3 Carbon (Mt/a) 0 -0.12 -0.6 -1.15 -1.58 ; - .58 -1.58 NO(kt/a) 0 -0.35 -1.87 -3.66 -4.97 -4.97 -4.97 SO, (ktia) 0 -0.11 -0.56 -1.1 -1.49 

## -r,49 -1.49 

### Table5. Cumulative Emissions Reductions through 2020: Households MEF Emission 0.86 0.908 0.961 1.021 1.089 1.257 1.362 1.485 1.634 1.04 in 2004 1.26 in 2007 TSL1 TSL2 TSL4 TSL5 TSL6 TSL3 (PROPOSED MEF) Carbon (Mt) 0.6 2.3 4.7 6.8 12.9 15.9 15.9 16.5 16.9 13.9 NO (kt) 2.2 8.4 16.9 25.8 42 50.4 50.5 53 54.4 43.9 SO2(kt) 0.6 2.5 5.2 15.5 15.1 15.1 15.1 15.3 15.5 13.2

EA- 13

### 5.1.3 Power and Residential Sector Emissions

Cumulative emissions reduction for the power sector and households (excluding upstream emissions) over the 17-year period modeled are presented in Table 6 below.
Table 6. Cumulative Emissions Reductions through 2020: Household and Power Sectors MIEF Emission 0.86 0.908 0.961 1.021 1.089 1.257 1.362 1.485 1.634 1.04in 2004 1.26in2007 TSL1 TSL2 TSL4 TSL5 TSL6 TSL3 (PROPOSED MEF) Carbon (Mt) 2.5 8.1 14.8 18.9 35.2 52.3 52.8 61.3 65 43.7 NO (kt) 8.4 27.5 50.3 65.4 114.2 164.4 166.7 197.8 209.9 137.4 SO2 (kt) 0.6* 2.5* 5.2* 15.5* 15.1* 15.1* 15.1* 15.3* 15.5* 13.2* *Results include only household emissions reductions because the power sector emissions cap implies that savings from electricity generation will be negligible. 

### Cumulative emissions reductions for the power sector and households (excluding upstream emissions) with the forecast extended through 2030 are in Table 7. Table 7. Cumulative Emissions Reductions through 2030: Household and Power Sectors MEF Emission 0.86 0.908 0.961 1.021 1.089 1.257 1.362 1.485 1.634 1.04in2004 1.26in2007 TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 4 TSL5 TSL 6 TSL 3 (PROPOSED

____________ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ MEF) Carbon(Mt) 5.1 16.4 30 38.1 70.9 106 107 127 135 95.1 NO(kt) 14.4 47.4 87.4 116 194 281 283 344 364 253.5 SO2 (kt) 1.2* 49* 49* 31.4* 30.3* 303* 30.3* 30.9* 31.4* 28.1* *Results include only household emissions reductions because the power sector emissions cap implies that savings from electricity generation will be negligible.

EA- 14

### 5.1.4 Fuel-Cycle Emissions

The effects of standards on upstream emissions are not reported here. Please refer to Appendix EA-2 for a general description of the possible magnitude of these effects. 5.1.5 High and Low Sensitivity Analysis for Air Emissions The Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), a document produced yearly by DOE/ETA, forecasts emission outputs. As part of its analysis, the AEO analyzes sensitivities for assumptions of high and low economic growth for the nation. These assumptions of economic activity in turn produce differences in fuel use and fuel prices. The Reference Case, refers to the emissions predicted in AE099, i.e., without a new clothes washer standard. In Tables 8 and 10, DOE reports the equivalent results for the High and Low Economic Growth Cases for the proposed TSL 3. Table 8 shows the annual emissions savings from the power sector with the corresponding annual change in household emissions shown in Table 10. In addition to the high and low economic activity AEO scenarios, additional sensitivities were analyzed based on predictions of how much clothes washer shipments would decrease for an increase in clothes washer price (i.e., high and low assumptions for price elasticity) that may accompany an increase in clothes washer efficiency. Detailed analysis is reported in Chapter 9 of the TSD. DOE reported the equivalent results for assumptions of high and low price elasticity scenarios for the proposed standard level. Table 9 shows the annual emissions savings from the power sector with the corresponding annual change in household emissions shown in Table 11. Shown in Tables 12 and 13 are the low and high sensitivities for the proposed proposed rulemaking scenario. Table 12 shows results for the low and high economic growth cases. Generally, the carbon savings for the Low Economic Growth Cases are slightly lower than those reported for the comparable Reference Case standards scenario while the savings for the High Economic Growth Cases are slightly higher than those reported for the Reference Case. Table 13 covers high and low price elasticities with MEFs of 1.04 and 1.26 in the years 2004 and 2007, respectively. The price elasticity sensitivities are chosen to represent a relatively large drop and a relatively small drop in forecasted shipments when a new minimum efficiency standard takes affect. See the Shipments and National Energy Savings in Chapters 9 and 10 of the TSD for more detailed discussion.

EA- 15Table 8. High and Low Economic Growth: Annual Power Sector Emissions for Proposed Standard (Trial Standard Level 3)

NEMS-BRS Results Difference from AE099 Reference 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 AE099 High Economic Growth Reference Case Difference from AE099Reference Case Extrapolation Carbon (MtJa)"3 590.6 628.9 679 741.8 799 4.5 32.6 46.6 71.7 104 NO (ktia)2'3 4200 3628.7 3764.8 3937.2 4000.7 18 163 163 236 263 MEF = 1.04 in 2004 & 1.26 in 2007 High EconomicGrowth Carbon (Mt/a) 590.6 628.7 677.8 739.4 795.1 Carbon (Mt/a) 0 -0.2 -1.2 -2.4 -3.9 -3.9 -3.9 NO (ktia) 4200.3 3626.2 3760.3 3929.1 3994.6 NOx (kt/a) 0 -2.5 -4.5 -8.06 -6.1 -6.1 -6.1 AE099 Low Economic GrowthReference Case Difference from AE099 Reference Carbon (Mt/a)1'3 586.1 596.3 632.4 670.1 694.6 -1.8 -17 -21 -34.5 -50 NO(ktJa)2'3 4182 3465.4 3601.5 3701.3 3737.6 -9 -82 -64 -118 -145 MEF = 1.04 in 2004 & 1.26 in 2007 Low Economic Growth Carbon(MtJa) 586.1 596.1 631 667.8 691.3 Carbon(Mt/a) 0 -0.2 -1.4 -2.3 -3.3 -3.3 -3.3 NO (kt/a) 4182.1 3464.6 3593.7 3693.3 3728.9 NOx (ktla) 0 -0.8 -7.8 -8 -8.7 -8.7 -8.7 Comparable to Table B19 of AE099: Electric Generators Comparable to Table B8 of AE099: Emissions All results to metric tons (t), equivalent to 1.1 short tons

EA- 16

### Table 9. High and Low Price Elasticity Scenarios: Annual Power Sector Emissions for Proposed Standard

(Trial Standard Level 3) NEMS-BRS Results Difference from AE099 Reference 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2000 2005 2010 201 2020 2025 2030 MEF =1.04in2004 & 1.26in2007 Level with Low Price Elasticity Carbon (MtJa) 588.9 612.7 652.1 702.2 741 Carbon (MtJa) 0 -0.2 -1.1 -2.4 -3.6 -3.6 -3.6 NO(ktJa) 4191.2 3545.5 3661.2 3811.4 3876.1 NQ(ktla) 0 -1.6 -3.9 -7.8 -6.6 -6.6 -6.6 MEF= 1.04in2004 & 1.26 in 2007 Levelwith High Price Elasticity Carbon(MtJa) 588.9 612.7 652.2 702.3 741 Carbon(MtJa) 0 -0.2 -1 -2.3 -3.6 -3.6 -3.6 NO(kt/a) 4191.2 3545.8 3661.2 3811.4 3875.5 NO(ktJa) 0 -1.3 -3.9 -7.8 -7.2 -72 -7.2

EA- 17

### Table 10. High and Low Economic Growth: Change in Annual Household Emissions for Proposed Standard (Trial Standard Level 3) Results 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 MEF = 1.04 in 2004 & 1.26 in 2007 High Economic Growth Carbon (Mt/a) 0 -0.12 -0.6 -1.12 -1.54 -1.54 -1.54 NO (ktla) 0 -0.35 -1.88 -3.66 -4.97 -4 497 SO2 (kt/a) 0 -0.11 -0.56 -1.1 -1.49 -1.49

# J -1 .4 MEF = 1.04 in 2004 & 1.26 in 2007 Low Economic Growth 

# I Carbon (Mt/a) 0 -0.11 -0.6 -1.18 -1.62 __________ i -.'.62 -1.62

# 1 NO(kt/a) 0 -0.35 -__ -1.87 -3.66 -4.97 -4.9' 4:97] SO2 (ktia) 0 -0.11 -0.56 -1.1 -1.49

# [ -1.49 -1.49 

### Table 11. High and Low Price Elasticity: Change in Annual Household Emissions for

Proposed Standard (Trial Standard Level 3) Results 2000 2005 2010

# 1 2015 2020 2'25 I MEF = 1.04 in 2004 & 1.26 in 2007 Level with Low Price Elasticityc Carbon (Mt/a) 0 -0.12 -0.61 -1.19 ________ ________ -1.6 -1,6 1, , NO (ktla) 0 -0.36 -1.94 -3.78 -5.04 -.S.0Z -5.04 S02(ktla) 0 -0.11 -0.58 -1.13 -1.51 -J.5I -1.51 MEF = 1.04 in 2004 & 1.26 in 2007 Level with High Price Elasticity Carbon (Mt/a) 0 -0.12 -0.56 -1.11 -1.58 -1.58 -1.58. NO (kt/a) 0 -0.35 -1.78 -3.52 -4.95 -4.95 -4.95 I SO2 (ktia) 0 -0.11 -0.53 -1.06 -1.48 -L48 -1.48

# [

cAs used here , low price elasticity means the medium price/income elasticity option in the Shipment/NES spreadsheet model discussed in Chapter 9 of the TSD. EA- 18