1

[BILLING CODE]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430

[Docket Number EERE–2008–BT–STD–0019]

RIN: 1904–AB90

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential 

Clothes Washers

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

ACTION: Direct Final Rule.

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

prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, including residential clothes washers. EPCA also 

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

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

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

conservation standards for residential clothes washers. It has determined that the 

amended energy conservation standards for these products would result in significant 
2

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

notice of proposed rulemaking that proposes identical energy efficiency standards is 

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

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

final rule, this final rule will be withdrawn and DOE will proceed with the proposed rule.

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

PUBLICATION DATE] unless adverse comment is received by [INSERT DATE 

THAT IS 110 DAYS FROM PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. If 

adverse comments are received that DOE determines may provide a reasonable basis for 

withdrawal of the final rule, a timely withdrawal of this rule will be published in the 

Federal Register. If no such adverse comments are received, compliance with the 

amended standards established for residential clothes washers in today’s final rule will be 

required on January 1, 2015 and January 1, 2018.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

disclosure. 
3

A link to the docket web page can be found at: 

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019. The regulations.gov

web page contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

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

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

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

Stephen.Witkowski@ee.doe.gov.

Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: 

(202) 586-7796. E-mail: Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of the Direct Final Rule and Its Benefits

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

B. Impact on Manufacturers

C. National Benefits

D. Conclusion

II. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Background

1. Current Standards

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Residential Clothes Washers
4

III. General Discussion

A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage

1. Elimination of Existing Product Classes

2. Product Class Differentiation by Method of Access

3. Compact Product Class

4. Product Class Summary

B. Test Procedure

1. Capacity Measurement

2. Test Load Size

3. Self Clean Cycles

4. Steam Cycles

5. Consumer Usage Patterns

6. Standard Extractor RMC Test Procedure

7. Performance Metric

8. Standby Power

9. Test Cloth

10. Technical Edits

11. Anti-Circumvention

C. Technological Feasibility

1. General

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

D. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

2. Significance of Savings

E. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

2. Rebuttable Presumption

IV. Methodology and Discussion

A. Market and Technology Assessment

1. General

2. Products Included in this Rulemaking

3. Product Classes

4. Non-Regulatory Programs

5. Technology Options

B. Screening Analysis

1. Technologies Requiring Clarification or Reclassification

2. Technological Feasibility

3. Practicability to Manufacture, Install, and Service/Adverse Impacts on Product 

Utility or Availability

4. Adverse Impacts on Health or Safety

5. Additional Screening Criteria

C. Engineering Analysis

1. Other Technologies not Analyzed

2. Baseline Efficiency Levels

3. Higher Efficiency Levels

4. Maximum Technologically Feasible Efficiency Levels
5

5. Proprietary Designs

6. Reverse Engineering

D. Markups Analysis

E. Energy and Water Use Analysis

1. Clothes Washer Usage

2. Rebound Effect

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

1. Product Cost

2. Installation Cost

3. Annual Energy Consumption

4. Energy Prices

5. Energy Price Projections

6. Water and Wastewater Prices

7. Maintenance and Repair Costs

8. Product Lifetime

9. Discount Rates

10. Compliance Date of Amended Standards

11. Base-Case Efficiency Distribution

12. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis

13. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Period

G. National Impact Analysis–National Energy Savings and Net Present Value 

Analysis

1. Shipments

2. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case and Standards Cases

3. Total Installed Cost per Unit

4. National Energy and Water Savings

5. Net Present Value of Consumer Benefit

6. Benefits from Effects of Standards on Energy Prices

H. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview

2. GRIM Analysis

3. Discussion of Comments

4. Manufacturer Interviews

J. Employment Impact Analysis

K. Utility Impact Analysis

L. Environmental AssessmentEmissions Analysis

M. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts

1. Social Cost of Carbon

2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions

V. Analytical Results

A. Trial Standard Levels

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers

3. National Impact Analysis
6

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy

7. Other Factors

C. Conclusion

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Residential Clothes Washers

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

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. Description of why DOE is considering the standards in today’s direct final rule

2. Statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the standards

3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated

4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements

5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

M. Congressional Notification

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Summary of the Direct Final Rule and Its Benefits

Title III, Part B1

 1

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

of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or 

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

Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. Pursuant to 

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

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

maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and 
7

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

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

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

adopting amended energy conservation standards for residential clothes washers. The 

amended standards, which are a minimum allowable integrated modified energy factor 

(IMEF) and maximum allowable integrated water factor (IWF), are shown in Table I-1.

One set of amended standards applies to all products listed in Table I-1 manufactured in, 

or imported into, the United States on or after January 1, 2015. A second set of amended 

standards applies to the two top-loading product classes for products manufactured in, or 

imported into, the United States on or after January 1, 2018. 

Table I-1 Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes 

Washers (Compliance Starting 2015 and 2018)

Product Class

Compliance Date:

January 1, 2015

Compliance Date:

January 1, 2018

Minimum 

IMEF*

Maximum 

IWF†

Minimum 

IMEF*

Maximum 

IWF†

1. Top-loading, Compact 

(less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) 0.86 14.4 1.15 12.0

2. Top-loading, Standard 1.29 8.4 1.57 6.5

3. Front-loading, Compact 

(less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) 1.13 8.3 N/A

4. Front-loading, Standard 1.84 4.7 N/A

*IMEF (integrated modified energy factor) is calculated as the clothes container capacity in cubic feet 

divided by the sum, expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh), of: (1) the total weighted per-cycle hot water 

energy consumption; (2) the total weighted per-cycle machine electrical energy consumption; (3) the percycle energy consumption for removing moisture from a test load; and (4) the per-cycle standby and off 

mode energy consumption.

†

IWF (integrated water consumption factor) is calculated as the sum, expressed in gallons per cycle, of the 

total weighted per-cycle water consumption for all wash cycles divided by the clothes container capacity in 

cubic feet.

These standard levels are equivalent to those proposed in a comment submitted by 

groups representing manufacturers; energy and environmental advocates; and consumer 
8

groups. This collective set of comments, titled “Agreement on Minimum Federal 

Efficiency Standards, Smart Appliances, Federal Incentives and Related Matters for 

Specified Appliances” (the “Joint Petition”2

Table I-2

), recommends specific energy conservation 

standards for residential clothes washers that, in the commenters’ view, would satisfy the 

EPCA requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). The amended standards that DOE is adopting 

in today’s direct final rule, and their compliance dates, are the clothes washer efficiencies 

recommended in the Joint Petition (shown in ), evaluated according to DOE’s 

clothes washer test procedure at appendix J2 and expressed in integrated energy and 

water use metrics.

Table I-2 Joint Petition Recommended Energy Conservation Standards for 

Residential Clothes Washers (Compliance Starting 2015 and 2018)

Product Class

Compliance Date:

January 1, 2015

Compliance Date:

January 1, 2018

Minimum 

MEF*

Maximum 

WF†

Minimum 

MEF*

Maximum 

WF†

1. Top-loading, Compact 

(less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) 1.26 14.0 1.81 11.6

2. Top-loading, Standard 1.72 8.0 2.0 6.0

3. Front-loading, Compact 

(less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) 1.72 8.0 N/A

4. Front-loading, Standard 2.20 4.5 N/A

*MEF (modified energy factor) is calculated as the clothes container capacity in cubic feet divided by the 

sum, expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh), of: (1) the total weighted per-cycle hot water energy consumption; 

(2) the total weighted per-cycle machine electrical energy consumption; and (3) the per-cycle energy 

consumption for removing moisture from a test load.

†

WF (water consumption factor) is calculated as the sum, expressed in gallons per cycle, of the total 

weighted per-cycle water consumption for the cold wash/cold rinse cycle divided by the clothes container 

capacity in cubic feet.

 2 DOE Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–STD–0019, Comment 35. 

Comment [A1]: Change recommended by OIRA. 
9

As discussed further in III.A.1, DOE did not maintain the top-loading semiautomatic and suds-saving product classes, and therefore did not consider these product 

classes in its analysis. DOE also added a front-loading, compact product class.

A.

Table I-3

Benefits and Costs to Consumers

presents DOE’s evaluation of the economic impacts of today’s 

standards on consumers of residential clothes washers, as measured by the average lifecycle cost (LCC) savings and the median payback period. The impacts on consumers, as 

measured by the average LCC savings, are positive for all product classes.

Table I-3 Impacts of Today’s Standards on Consumers of Residential Clothes 

Washers

Product Class Average LCC 

Savings (2010$

Median Payback Period 

) (years

Top-Loading, Standard*

)

268/366 0.4/0.9

Front-Loading, Standard 37 1.3

Top-Loading, Compact* 159/312 0.5/2.1

Front-Loading, Compact 54 0.8

* The first value refers to the standards in 2015, and the second value refers to the standards in 2018.

B.

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

the industry from the base year through the end of the analysis period (2015 to 2044). 

Using a real discount rate of 8.5 percent, DOE estimates that the industry net present 

value (INPV) for manufacturers of clothes washers is $2,586 million in 2010$. Under 

today’s standards, DOE expects that manufacturers may lose up to 33 percent of their 

INPV, which is approximately $859 million. Additionally, based on DOE’s interviews 

Impact on Manufacturers
10

with the manufacturers of clothes washers, DOE does not expect any plant closings or 

significant loss of employment.

C.

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

of energy and water over 30 years (2015–2044)―an estimated 2.04 quads of energy and 

3.03 trillion gallons of water. In addition, DOE expects the energy savings from today’s

standards to eliminate the need for approximately 1.30 gigawatts (GW) of generating 

capacity by 2044. 

National Benefits

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

savings of today’s standards in 2010$ ranges from $13.01 billion (at a 7-percent discount 

rate) to $31.29 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated 

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

for products purchased in 2015–2044, discounted to 2011.

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

energy savings would result in cumulative greenhouse gas emission reductions of 

approximately 113 million metric tons (Mt) of carbon dioxide (CO2) from 2015 through 

2044. During this period, the standards would also result in emissions reductions3

 3 DOE calculates emissions reductions relative to the most recent version of the Annual Energy Outlook

(AEO) Reference case forecast. As noted in section 15.2 of the direct final rule TSD chapter 15, this 

forecast accounts for emissions reductions from in-place regulations, including the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR, 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005)), but not the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR, 70 FR 28606 

(May 18, 2005)). Subsequent regulations, including the recently finalized transport rule, the Cross-State Air 

Pollution rule issued on July 6, 2011, do not appear in the forecast at this time.

of 
11

approximately 94.1 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and 0.269 ton of mercury 

(Hg).4 DOE estimates that the net present monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions is between $530 and $8,450 million, expressed in 2010$ and discounted to 

2011. The value of the CO2 reductions is otherwise known as the Social Cost of Carbon 

(SCC), and is calculated using a range of values per metric ton of CO2 developed by a 

recent interagency process. The derivation of the SCCthese Social Cost of Carbon (SCC)

values is discussed in section IV.M.1. DOE also estimates that the net present monetary 

value of the NOX emissions reductions, expressed in 2010$ and discounted to 2011, is 

$12 to $122 million at a 7-percent discount rate, and $28 to $286 million at a 3-percent 

discount rate.5

The benefits and costs of today’s standards, for products sold in 2015–2044, can 

also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized monetary values are the 

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

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

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

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

benefits of emission reductions, including CO2 emission reductions.6

 4 Results for NOX and Hg are presented in short tons. One short ton equals 2,000 lbs. 5 DOE is aware of multiple agency efforts to determine the appropriate range of values used in evaluating 

the potential economic benefits of reduced Hg emissions. DOE has decided to await further guidance 

regarding consistent valuation and reporting of Hg emissions before it once again monetizes Hg emissions 

reductions in its rulemakings.

6 DOE used a two-step calculation process to convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized 

values. First, DOE calculated a present value in 2011, the year used for discounting the NPV of total 

consumer costs and savings, for the time-series of costs and benefits using discount rates of three and 

seven percent for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO2 reductions. For the latter, DOE used a 

range of discount rates, as shown in Table I-3. From the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed 

annual payment over a 30-year period that yields the same present value. The fixed annual payment is the 

Comment [A2]: Changes recommended by 

OIRA. 
12

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

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

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

as a result of market transactions, while the value of CO2 reductions is based on a global 

value. Second, the assessments of operating cost savings and CO2 savings are performed 

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

operating cost savings is measured for the lifetime of products shipped in 2015–2044. 

The SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the present value of some future climaterelated impacts resulting from the emission of one metric ton of carbon dioxide in each 

year. These impacts continue well beyond 2100.

Table I-4 shows the annualized values for today’s standards for residential clothes 

washers, expressed in 2010$. The results under the primary estimate are as follows. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs other than CO2 reductions, for 

which DOE used a 3-percent discount rate along with the SCC series corresponding to a 

value of $22.3/ton in 2010, the cost of the standards for clothes washers in today’s rule is 

$185 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the annualized benefits are 

$1,234 million per year in reduced equipment operating costs, $141.7 million in CO2

reductions, and $5.4 million in reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit 

amounts to $1.20 billion per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and 

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

 annualized value. Although DOE calculated annualized values, this does not imply that the time-series of 

cost and benefits from which the annualized values were determined is a steady stream of payments.
13

standards for clothes washers in today’s rule is $212 million per year in increased 

equipment costs, while the benefits are $1,808 million per year in reduced operating 

costs, $141.7 million in CO2 reductions, and $8.0 million in reduced NOX emissions. In 

this case, the net benefit amounts to $1.75 billion per year.
14

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

Clothes Washers for Products Sold in 2015–2044

Discount Rate

Primary 

Estimate*

Low Net 

Benefits 

Estimate*

High Net 

Benefits 

Estimate*

Monetized (million 2010$/year)

Benefits

Operating Cost Savings

7% 1234 1101 1379

3% 1808 1587 2042

CO2 Reduction at $4.9/t** 5% 34.5 31.7 37.4

CO2 Reduction at $22.3/t** 3% 142 130 154

CO2 Reduction at $36.5/t** 2.5% 226 207 246

CO2 Reduction at $67.6/t** 3% 431 396 469

NOX Reduction at $2,537/t**

7% 5.40 5.03 5.82

3% 8.01 7.39 8.68

Total†

7% plus CO2 range 1274 to 1671 1137 to 1502 1423 to 1854

7% 1381 1236 1539

3% plus CO2 range 1851 to 2248 1626 to 1991 2089 to 2520

3% 1958 1725 2205

Costs

Incremental Product Costs

7% 185 258 200

3% 212 309 230

Total Net Benefits

Total†

7% plus CO2 range 1088 to 1485 880 to 1244 1223 to 1654

7% 1196 978 1339

3% plus CO2 range 1639 to 2036 1317 to 1682 1859 to 2291

3% 1746 1416 1976

* The Primary, Low Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices and housing 

starts (which affect product shipments) from the AEO2010

Comment [A3]: Changes recommended by 

OIRA.

Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, 

and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental product costs reflect a declining 

trend using the default product price trend for product prices in the Primary Estimate and the High Benefits 

Estimate, and constant product prices in the Low Benefits Estimate. (The default price trend is also the 

trend with the steepest decline, so it yields high benefits). Because product prices are constant in the Low 

Benefits Estimate, the incremental product costs are higher than in the other two estimates. Although the 

price trends in the Primary Estimate and the High Benefits Estimate are the same, the incremental product 

costs are higher in the High Benefits Estimate because this case assumes High Economic Growth and thus 

has more product shipments. The approach used for forecasting product prices is explained in section 

IV.F.1.
15

** The CO2 values represent global values (in 2010$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under

several scenarios. The values of $4.9, $22.3, and $36.5 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions 

calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The value of $67.6 per ton represents the 

95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The value for NOX (in 2010$) is 

the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis.

† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3% discount 

rate, which is $22.3/ton in 2010 (in 2010$). In the rows labeled as “7% plus CO2 range” and “3% plus CO2 

range,” the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values 

are added to the full range of CO2 values.

D.

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

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

and payback period, positive NPV of consumer benefit, and emission reductions) 

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

manufacturers). DOE has concluded that the standards in today’s final rule represent the 

maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would result in significant conservation of energy. DOE 

further notes that residential clothes washers achieving these standard levels are already 

commercially available.

Conclusion

II. Introduction 

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

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

establishment of standards for residential clothes washers.
16

A.

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

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

Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles,

Authority

7 a program 

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

products”), which includes the residential clothes washers that are the subject of this 

rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7)) EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for 

these products (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)(a)), and directed DOE to conduct three cycles of 

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

(g)(4)(B), and (g)(9)(B)) DOE also notes that under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), DOE must also

periodically review its energy conservation standards for covered products. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 7

 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.
17

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

standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. Id. The DOE test procedures for residential clothes 

washers appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 430, subpart B, 

appendices J1 and J2. Until the compliance date of the amended energy and water 

conservation standards established in today’s direct final rule, absent withdrawal of the 

rule by DOE pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), manufacturers must use the test 

procedures at appendix J1 to certify compliance. Subsequently, manufacturers must use 

the test procedures at appendix J2. Similarly, DOE will use the test procedure at appendix 

J1 for enforcement purposes until the compliance date of these amended energy and 

water conservation standards, and will subsequently use appendix J2. See section III.B

for a detailed discussion of the test procedure amendments.

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing amended standards for 

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

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

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

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

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

is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard 

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

receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by, to the greatest extent practicable, 

considering the following seven factors:
18

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

products subject to the standard;

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

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

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

the imposition of the standard; 

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

result directly from the imposition of the standard;

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

result from the imposition of the standard;

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

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

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

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

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII))

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

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

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

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

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

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

6295(o). A notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) that proposes an identical energy 
19

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

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

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

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

Secretary must determine whether the comments or alternative recommendation may 

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

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

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

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

Id.

Furthermore, EPCA contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EPCA also establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically 

justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a 
20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

intended use, if products within such group – (A) consume a different kind of energy 

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

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

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

will apply to the other products within that type or class. Id. In determining whether a 

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

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

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

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

6295(q)(2))

Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State laws or 

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

6297(a)–(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular 
21

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

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

Any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated 

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

6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard for a covered product after that 

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

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

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

6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) The current standard for residential clothes washers is based on 

modified energy factor (MEF), a metric that does not incorporate standby or off mode 

energy use. On March 7, 2012, DOE published a final rule revising the clothes washer 

test procedure (hereafter, the March 2012 TP final rule). 77 FR 13888. Use of the new 

test procedure in 10 CFR 430 subpart B appendix J2 will be required for clothes washers 

manufactured on or after January 1, 2015. The revised test procedure establishes an 

“integrated modified energy factor” (IMEF), a metric that incorporates energy use in 

standby and off modes. The revised test procedure also includes updates to the active 

mode provisions of the test procedure, which affect the calculation of IMEF, and 

establishes an “integrated water factor” (IWF). In this final rule, DOE prescribes 

amended energy conservation standards based on IMEF and IWF.

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

on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281, Jan. 21, 2011). Executive Order 13563 is supplemental 
22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net 

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

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

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

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

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

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

be made by the public.

We emphasize as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies “to use the 

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

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

has emphasized that such techniques may include “identifying changing future 

compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes.” For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE believes that today’s 

direct final rule is consistent with these principles, including that, to the extent permitted 
23

by law, agencies adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits 

justify its costs and select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those 

approaches that maximize net benefits.

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

the energy conservation standards adopted herein by DOE achieve maximum net 

benefits.

B.

1. Current Standards

Background

In a final rule published on January 12, 2001 (2001 Final Rule), DOE prescribed 

amended energy conservation standards for residential clothes washers. 66 FR 3314. 

EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, revised the energy conservation standards for 

residential clothes washers by establishing a maximum water factor value, effective 

January 1, 2011. These standards are set forth in Table II-1.

Table II-1 Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers

Established in the 2001 Final Rule and EISA 2007

Product Class MEF WF 

ft3/kWh/cycle

Top-Loading, Compact (less than 1.6 

ft3 capacity)

gal/cycle/ft3

0.65* N/A

Top-Loading, Standard 1.26* 9.5**

Front-Loading 1.26* 9.5**

Top-Loading, Semi-Automatic N/A N/A

Suds-Saving N/A N/A

*Source: 2001 Final Rule (66 FR 3314)

**Source: EISA 2007 (42 USC 6295(g)(9))
24

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

later than December 31, 2011 determining whether to amend the standards in effect for 

clothes washers manufactured on or after January 1, 2015. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)) 

Today’s final rule fulfills this statutory requirement.

The EISA 2007 amendments further require that any final rule for new or 

amended energy conservation standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, address standby 

mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts 

a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if justified by the criteria for 

adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and 

off mode energy use into the standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard 

for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) Today’s standards 

are based on an “integrated modified energy factor” (IMEF), which incorporates energy 

use in standby mode and off mode, and an “integrated water factor” (IWF), which more 

accurately represents consumer usage patterns compared to the current water factor 

metric.

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Residential Clothes Washers

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

100-12 (March 17, 1989), amended EPCA and required that all rinse cycles of clothes 

washers manufactured after January 1, 1988 include an unheated water option, but stated 

that such clothes washers may have a heated water rinse option. NAECA further required 

Comment [A4]: Change recommended by OIRA. 
25

that DOE conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine if amended standards are 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(2) and (4))

To complete the first rulemaking cycle required by NAECA, DOE published an 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANOPR) on May 18, 1988 (53 FR 17712), a 

NOPR on August 9, 1989 (54 FR 32744), and a final rule on May 14, 1991 (May 1991 

final rule). 56 FR 22279. The May 1991 final rule mandated performance-based energy 

conservation standards for top-loading compact and standard clothes washers based on a 

minimum energy factor (EF) for products manufactured on or after May 14, 1994.

To complete the second rulemaking cycle required by NAECA, the Department 

published an ANOPR on November 14, 1994 to consider amending the energy 

conservation standards for clothes washers, dishwashers, and clothes dryers. 59 FR 

56423. DOE published a supplemental ANOPR for clothes washers on November 19, 

1998 (63 FR 64343), a NOPR on October 5, 2000 (65 FR 59550), and a final rule on 

January 12, 2001 revising the energy conservation standards. 66 FR 3314.

As mentioned in the “Background” section, EISA 2007 amended EPCA to revise 

the energy conservation standards for residential clothes washers by establishing a 

maximum water factor, effective January 1, 2011. (42 USC 6295(g)(9)) EPCA, as 

amended by EISA 2007, further requires that DOE publish a final rule no later than 
26

December 31, 2011, to determine whether to amend the standards in effect for clothes 

washers manufactured on or after January 1, 2015. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)(B)(i))

DOE initiated the current rulemaking on August 28, 2009 by publishing a notice 

announcing the availability of the framework document, the “Energy Conservation 

Standards Rulemaking Framework Document for Residential Clothes Washers.” In this 

notice, DOE also announced a public meeting and requested public comment on the 

matters raised in the framework document. 74 FR 44306 (Aug. 28, 2009). The framework 

document described the procedural and analytical approaches that DOE anticipated using 

to evaluate energy conservation standards for clothes washers and identified various 

issues to be resolved in conducting this rulemaking. The framework document is 

available at 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/clothes_washers_f

ramework.pdf

DOE held a public meeting on September 21, 2009, where it presented the 

contents of the framework document; described the analyses it planned to conduct during 

the rulemaking; sought comments from interested parties on these subjects; and, in 

general, sought to inform interested parties about, and facilitate their involvement in, the 

rulemaking. Interested parties discussed the following major issues at the public meeting: 

test procedure revisions; product classes; technology options; approaches to the 

engineering, life-cycle cost, payback period and national impact analyses; efficiency 

levels analyzed in the engineering analysis; and the approach for estimating typical 
27

energy and water consumption. At the meeting and during the period for commenting on 

the framework document, DOE received many comments that helped it identify and 

resolve issues involved in this rulemaking. 

In response to the framework document, DOE received the Joint Petition, a 

comment submitted by groups representing manufacturers (the Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool), General Electric 

Company (GE), Electrolux, LG Electronics, Inc. (LG), BSH Home Appliances (BSH), 

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

Samsung, Sharp Electronics, Miele, Heat Controller, AGA Marvel, Brown Stove, Haier, 

Fagor America, Airwell Group, Arcelik, Fisher & Paykel, Scotsman Ice, Indesit, 

Kuppersbusch, Kelon, and DeLonghi); energy and environmental advocates (American 

Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Appliance Standards Awareness 

Project (ASAP), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Alliance to Save Energy 

(ASE), Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE), Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council (NPCC), and Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP)); and consumer 

groups (Consumer Federation of America (CFA) and the National Consumer Law Center 

(NCLC)) (collectively, the “Joint Petitioners”). The Joint Petitioners recommended

specific energy conservation standards for residential clothes washers that, in their view, 

would satisfy the EPCA requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Earthjustice submitted a 

comment affirming its support for the joint petition. (Earthjustice, No. 38 at p. 1)8

 8 A notation in the form “Earthjustice, No. 38 at p. 1” identifies a written comment that DOE has received 

and has included in the docket of the standards rulemaking for residential clothes washers (Docket No. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019). This particular notation refers to a comment (1) submitted by Earthjustice, (2) 
28

After careful consideration of the Joint Petition containing a consensus 

recommendation for amended energy conservation standards for residential clothes 

washers, the Secretary has determined that this “Consensus Agreement” has been 

submitted by interested persons who are fairly representative of relevant points of view 

on this matter. Congress provided some guidance within the statute itself by specifying 

that representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency 

advocates are relevant parties to any consensus recommendation. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4)(A)) As delineated above, the Consensus Agreement was signed and submitted 

by a broad cross-section of the manufacturers who produce the subject products, their 

trade associations, and environmental, energy efficiency and consumer advocacy 

organizations. Although States were not signatories to the Consensus Agreement, they 

did not express any opposition to it. Moreover, DOE does not read the statute as requiring 

absolute agreement among all interested parties before the Department may proceed with 

issuance of a direct final rule. By explicit language of the statute, the Secretary has 

discretion to determine when a joint recommendation for an energy or water conservation 

standard has met the requirement for representativeness (i.e., “as determined by the 

Secretary”). Accordingly, DOE will consider each consensus recommendation on a caseby-case basis to determine whether the submission has been made by interested persons 

fairly representative of relevant points of view.

 in document number 38 in the docket of that rulemaking, and (3) appearing on page 1 of document number 

38.
29

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and 

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

the Secretary determined that the Consensus Agreement submitted in the instant 

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

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

3 in today’s rule for residential clothes washers. The details of the efficiency levels 

comprising TSL 3 and the other TSLs considered for the direct final rule are discussed in 

section VI.A.

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

satisfied, the Secretary has determined that it is appropriate to adopt amended energy 

conservation standards for residential clothes washers through this direct final rule.

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

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

final rule and is providing for a 110-day public comment period. DOE will consider 
30

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

basis for withdrawal of a direct final rule.

3. Issues on which DOE seeks Comment

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

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

contained a consensus recommendation for amended energy conservation standards for 

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

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

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

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

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

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

the amended energy conservation standards for residential clothes washers.
31

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

publishing a NOPR and providing for a 110-day public comment period. Should DOE 

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

conservation standards activities for residential clothes washers, DOE will consider any 

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

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

the following:

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

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

wash clothes, ability to achieve good wash performance (e.g.

(2) The 2015 and 2018 compliance dates for the proposed standards and whether 

these compliance dates adequately consider the typical clothes washer model 

design cycle for manufacturers.

, cleaning and

rinsing), increased longevity of clothing, improved ergonomics of washer use, 

increase in noise, and other potential impacts.

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

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

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

standards.

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

complementary goods (e.g., laundry detergent, stain removers, fabric 

softeners) that may result from the proposed standards.
32

(5) Whether DOE should incorporate the cost of risers or storage drawers (also 

referred to as pedestals) into the baseline installation costs for front-loading 

machines. 

DOE has prepared a technical support document (TSD) that analyzed the effect of 

this rule on, among other things, life cycle costs, payback periods and other consumerrelated impacts. However, there are other facets of consumer welfare that are not 

explicitly captured in this analysis, including washing performance, increased longevity 

of clothing, and noise. While information gathered in the course of this rulemaking did 

not demonstrate a linkage between these between these topics and efficiency standards, 

DOE is seeking comment and information on how consumers value changes in these 

attributes and if those values should be incorporated into DOE analysis.

Changes in the utility of the products

Also, although it is outside the scope of this rule, DOE may consider seeking 

information on whether to account for wash performance and fabric care in test 

procedures for clothes washers.

Recognizing that this direct final rule, including the compliance dates, is based on 

a consensus agreement including virtually all manufacturers of residential clothes 

washers, DOE is seeking comment on redesign timelines anticipated by the 

manufacturers and how the 2015 and 2018 compliance dates may affect those timelines. 

2015 and 2018 compliance dates
33

DOE’s manufacturer impact analysis is based on information provided by the 

manufacturer and supports the positions that manufacturers will need to make only minor 

redesign to comply with the 2015 standards, though the 2018 standards could require 

more substantial redesigns. Accepting that manufacturers fully considered their cost 

implications prior to entering voluntarily the consensus agreement, DOE assumes that 

manufacturers would not have agreed to compliance dates they could not meet or that 

imposed prohibitive costs. However, depending on how the redesign timeline and the 

compliance dates coincide, the cost estimates may be affected, for example, due to sunk 

cost, as well as the anticipated market shares of front-loading versus top-loading clothes 

washers.

The TSD, which is available at the rulemaking website at 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/clothes_washers.html, 

provides an overview of the activities DOE undertook in developing standards for clothes 

washers. It presents and describes in detail each analysis DOE performed, including 

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

• A market and technology assessment

• A 

addresses the scope of this rulemaking, 

identifies the clothes washer product classes, characterizes the markets for the 

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

screening analysis reviews technology options to improve the efficiency of 

residential clothes washers and weighs those options against DOE’s four 

prescribed screening criteria.

Comment [A5]: Changes recommended bv 

OIRA. 
34

• An engineering analysis

• A 

develops the relationship between increased 

manufacturer price and increased efficiency.

markups analysis

• An 

establishes markups for converting manufacturer prices to 

customer product costs.

energy use analysis

• A 

generates energy-use estimates for residential clothes 

washers as a function of efficiency levels.

life-cycle cost analysis

• A 

calculates the effects of standards on individual 

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

products with and without higher efficiency standards.

shipments analysis

• A 

forecasts shipments with and without higher efficiency 

standards.

national impact analysis

• A 

forecasts the national energy savings (NES), and the 

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

from specific, potential energy conservation standards for residential clothes 

washers.

consumer subgroup analysis

• A 

discusses the effects of standards on different 

subgroups of consumers.

manufacturer impact analysis

• An 

discusses the effects of standards on the finances 

and profitability of product manufacturers.

employment impact analysis

• A 

discusses the indirect effects of standards on 

national employment.

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

utilities.
35

• An environmental assessmentAn emissions analysis

• A 

discusses the effects of 

standards on three pollutants—sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and 

mercury—as well as carbon emissions.

regulatory impact analysis discusses the impact of non-regulatory alternatives 

to efficiency standards.

Finally, the comments received since publication of the framework document, 

including the Joint Petition, have contributed to DOE’s proposed resolution of the issues 

in this rulemaking. This direct final rule addresses these comments and responds to the 

issues they raised.

III. General Discussion

A.

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE divides 

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

performance-related features that affect efficiency. Different energy conservation 

standards may apply to different product classes. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))

Product Classes and Scope of Coverage

DOE received several comments from interested parties regarding the product 

classes and their organization. Specifically, DOE received comments regarding the 

criteria used as a basis for creating product classes; the potential elimination of toploading semiautomatic and suds-saving product classes; and whether combination 
36

washer/dryers are covered products. DOE’s responses to these comments are discussed in 

the following sections.

Existing energy conservation standards divide residential clothes washers into 

five product classes based on location of access, capacity, and other features such as suds 

saving.

• Top-loading, compact (less than 1.6 cubic feet capacity);

• Top-loading, standard (1.6 cubic feet or greater capacity);

• Top-loading, semiautomatic;

• Front-loading; and

• Suds-saving.

AWE stated that DOE’s practice of considering separate product classes should 

be analyzed, and that by making exceptions for old technologies by creating their own 

product class, DOE hinders innovation and the establishment of more progressive 

standards. AWE further stated that some manufacturers have already demonstrated that 

efficiency levels can be obtained without sacrificing performance. According to AWE, 

DOE should move to performance-based standards and to eliminate technology-based 

standards unless it can be demonstrated that the full life-cycle consumer economic 

impacts would favor continuation of product classes. (AWE, No. 12 at p. 2) Pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. 6295(q), DOE must set different energy conservation standards for groups of 

covered products if such products consume a different kind of energy than other products 
37

within the same type or class, or if such products have a capacity or other performancerelated feature that justifies a different standard. In determining whether a different 

standard is justified, EPCA requires DOE to consider utility to the consumer and any 

other appropriate factors. DOE is required to establish standards that achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy and water efficiency that is both technologically 

feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) As explained below, DOE 

has adhered to these statutory requirements in establishing the product classes in today’s 

rulemaking.

1. Elimination of Existing Product Classes

DOE sought comment in the framework document as to whether it should retain 

the top-loading semi-automatic and suds-saving product classes because it is unaware of 

any such residential clothes washers on the market. DOE also noted that its test 

procedures at appendices J1 and J2 do not measure the possible energy savings associated 

with suds-saving because DOE is not aware of methodology to measure such savings 

over sequential operating cycles as necessary to capture the benefit of suds-saving. 

AHAM, ALS, GE, Samsung, and Whirlpool supported the elimination of top-loading 

semi-automatic and suds-saving product classes. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 7 at pp. 42, 729

 9 A notation in the form “AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at pp. 42, 72” identifies an oral 

comment that DOE received during the September 21, 2009, framework public meeting and which was 

recorded in the public meeting transcript in the docket for the standards rulemaking for residential clothes 

washers (Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019), maintained in the Resource Room of the Building 

Technologies Program. This particular notation refers to a comment (1) made by the Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) during the public meeting, (2) recorded in document number 7, which 

is the public meeting transcript that is filed in the docket of this rulemaking, and (3) which appears on 

pages 42 and 72 of document number 7.

; ALS, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 39; GE, Public Meeting 
38

Transcript, No. 7 at p. 41; GE, No. 20 at p. 110 ; Samsung, No. 25 at p. 3; Whirlpool, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 41) AHAM, ALS, GE, and Whirlpool stated that 

these products are no longer available on the market. (AHAM, No. 16 at p. 3; ALS, No. 

13 at p. 2; GE, No. 20 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 3) AWE stated that suds-saving is 

not a new or proprietary technology, but that it is starting to make a comeback. AWE 

further stated DOE should consider suds saving in its analysis. (AWE, No. 12 at p. 3) In 

its research, DOE did not identify any suds-saving residential clothes washers on the 

market in the United States. For this reason, and in accordance with general support 

among interested parties, DOE is eliminating the top-loading semi-automatic and sudssaving product classes in this final rule.

2. Product Class Differentiation by Method of Access

In the framework document, DOE also sought comment as to whether the method 

of loading clothes washers, or any other characteristic commonly associated with 

traditional top-loading or front-loading clothes washers are “features” within the meaning 

of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) in EPCA and whether the availability of such feature(s) would 

likely be affected by eliminating the separate classes for these product types previously 

established by DOE. More specifically, DOE invited comments on whether one or more 

of the characteristics commonly associated with different types of clothes washers, such 

as method of loading, presence or absence of agitators, ability to interrupt cycles and 

possibly others, provide consumer utility that should, under existing law, be recognized 

and protected by DOE in separate product classes.

 10 In its written comment, document number 19 in the docket of this rulemaking, GE states that it adopts by 

reference the comments submitted to DOE by AHAM. Thus, GE is cited alongside AHAM when 

discussing AHAM’s written comments.
39

a. Single Product Class

ACEEE, ASAP, Electrolux Home Products (EHP), NEEP, Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company (PG&E), and Samsung, along with PG&E, Southern California Gas 

Company (SCG), and Southern California Edison (SCE), jointly (hereafter “California 

Utilities”) and ASAP, NRDC, and NCLC, jointly (hereafter, “Joint Comment”11

 11 The Alliance to Save Energy submitted a written comment, designated as document number 23 in the 

docket of this rulemaking, stating that it endorses the joint comments submitted by ASAP, NRDC, and 

NCLC, and requested that it be listed as a co-endorser in citation of these joint comments.

), 

supported a single product class for all standard-size clothes washers, eliminating the 

differentiation based on method of loading. According to BSH, the California Utilities, 

Earthjustice, the Joint Comment, and NEEP, a single product class would not lessen 

utility or performance under EPCA. ASAP and the California Utilities commented that a 

single product class would not eliminate top-loaders from the market, and AWE noted 

that there are high efficiency top-loading clothes washers available. ASAP and the Joint 

Comment stated that there are at least 35 clothes washer models from four manufacturers 

on the current ENERGY STAR list. BSH commented that with the current differentiation 

between top-loading and front-loading clothes washers, consumers may assume that a 

high efficiency top-loader is more efficient than a “worst-in-class” front-loader if they are 

both ENERGY STAR rated, even though the reverse may be true. The California Utilities 

noted that there are currently 10–15 top-loading residential clothes washers in the 

California Energy Commission (CEC) database that are Consortium for Energy 

Efficiency (CEE) Tier 2 or better, and top-loading horizontal-axis clothes washers with 

efficiencies comparable to front-loading clothes washers are prevalent in some European 

markets. Samsung noted that utility rebates and certain energy labeling programs do not 
40

differentiate by clothes washer axis. (ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 46; 

ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at pp. 34–35, p. 45; AWE, No. 12 at p. 2; BSH, 

No. 11 at p. 2; California Utilities, No. 19 at pp. 1, 3; EHP, No. 18 at p. 2; Earthjustice, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 42; Earthjustice, No. 17 at p. 1; Joint Comment, 

No. 15 at p. 4; NEEP, No. 21 at pp. 1–2; PG&E, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 

43; Samsung, No. 25 at p. 3)

According to EHP, NEEP, and Samsung, the method of access for loading 

clothing is not a feature that provides utility to the consumer. EHP stated that manner of 

access was merely a convenience. BSH commented that the vast majority of clothes 

washers are sold with dryers, and clothes dryers are front-loading. (BSH, No. 11 at p. 2; 

EHP, No. 18 at p. 2; NEEP, No. 21 at p. 1; Samsung, No. 25 at p. 3)

b. Multiple Product Classes

AHAM, ALS, and GE stated that they support the proposed product classes, 

which maintain the distinction between top-loading and front-loading residential clothes 

washers. (AHAM, No. 24 at p. 2; ALS, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 39; GE, 

No. 20 at p. 1) ALS and GE commented that “top-loading” is a feature within the 

meaning of EPCA, although ALS believes that “vertical-axis” and “horizontal-axis” are 

better terms because a horizontal-axis clothes washer can be configured to be toploading. (ALS, No. 13 at p. 3; GE, No. 20 at p. 1)
41

AHAM and Whirlpool stated that multiple product classes for residential clothes 

washers would be consistent with classes that DOE has defined for other products. 

AHAM stated that multiple product classes were defined for refrigerator-freezers 

primarily on the basis of door placement. Whirlpool commented that multiple 

refrigerator-freezer classes reflect consumer choice and utility, while room air 

conditioner product classes also reflect consumer choice and utility as well as home 

configuration. (AHAM, No. 24 at p. 2; Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 3)

GE commented that, in contrast to front-loading residential clothes washers, the 

vast majority of top-loading products are manufactured in the United States and provide 

an important source of U.S. jobs in these manufacturing locations. According to GE, the 

U.S. manufacturers with significant investment in these top-loading products produced 

domestically could be significantly disadvantaged should standards eliminate top-loaders. 

(GE, No. 20 at p. 3)

AHAM commented that DOE already addressed the product class issue for 

residential clothes washers in its denial of California’s Petition for Waiver.12 (AHAM, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 43)

 12 This comment refers to DOE’s denial of the California Energy Commission’s petition for waiver from 

Federal preemption of its residential clothes washer water conservation standards. 71 FR 78157 (Dec. 28, 

2006). On October 28, 2009, for reasons unrelated to product class issues, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of 

Appeals reversed DOE’s ruling and remanded CEC’s petition for further review. California Energy 

Comm’n v. DOE, 585 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2009)
42

Finally, the Joint Petition proposes energy conservations standard levels for both 

the top-loading and front-loading standard and compact product classes. (Joint Petition, 

No. 32 at 8)

c. Consumer Utility

DOE received additional comments regarding specific issues that interested 

parties suggested are related to consumer utility in the context of residential clothes 

washer product classes.

AHAM, ALS, and GE stated that the longer cycle times of front-loading clothes 

washers support differentiation of product classes by method of access. According to 

ALS, cycle times longer than 85 minutes are necessary for front-loaders to achieve good 

wash performance, which can be achieved in a 55-minute wash cycle by a top-loader. 

(AHAM, No. 24 at p. 2; ALS, No. 13 at p. 4; GE, No. 20 at p. 2)

Cycle Time

The California Utilities stated that it had conducted a preliminary survey 

indicating that there may not be significant differences in cycle times between toploading and front-loading clothes washers. The Joint Comment noted that cycle times for 

front-loading clothes washers are becoming shorter. The California Utilities and the Joint 

Comment also suggested that the lower remaining moisture content (RMC) typical of 

front-loaders could lead to shorter clothes dryer cycle times, reducing the combined time 
43

of washing and drying a laundry load. (California Utilities, No. 19 at p. 3; Joint 

Comment, No. 15 at p. 4)

ALS stated that garments can be added during a wash cycle in a top-loading 

clothes washer, but that the loading door on a front-loading clothes washer must be 

locked. According to ALS, the door can be unlocked mid-cycle, but it requires time and 

may require draining the wash water. (ALS, No. 13 at p. 4)

Mid-Cycle Access

The California Utilities stated that many front-loading clothes washers are now 

equipped with a feature to unlock the door in the middle of a wash cycle. According to 

the Joint Comment, such a feature has been available on front-loaders for over a decade. 

(California Utilities, No. 19 at p. 3; Joint Comment No. 14 at p. 4)

ALS, GE, and Whirlpool stated that multiple product classes allow consumers a 

low-cost clothes washer option. ALS stated that purchase cost was the primary reason 

that top-loading residential clothes washers have maintained a majority of the market 

share, and that inherent differences between top-loading and front-loading designs will 

preclude comparable consumer cost for equivalent top-loaders and front-loaders. ALS 

commented that key components contributing to the added cost of front-loading clothes 

washers are motors, electronic controls, heavy mass weights, and door assembly costs. 

ALS estimated that the front-loading door feature results in a manufacturing cost 

Cost
44

differential of $250 and a consumer price differential of at least $500 when compared to a 

top-loading door. Also, according to ALS, consumer objections to stooping have required 

manufacturers to introduce pedestals for front-loading clothes washers, adding $250 to 

the retail price. (ALS, No. 13 at p. 3; GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 41; GE, 

No. 20 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 2) GE stated that a single product class would 

force extremely expensive technological changes on the industry. GE also commented 

that increased prices would have a disproportionate impact on low-income consumers 

who are especially sensitive to price. According to GE, these consumers may be unable to 

make high initial payments or obtain credit, and may choose to defer replacing older, less 

efficient clothes washers or to leave the home laundry market altogether. (GE, No. 20 at 

pp. 1, 3)

EHP commented that, in the past, manufacturers have been able to innovate to 

meet improved performance while maintaining cost. EHP also stated that payback in the 

form of lower energy and water costs would offset a higher initial cost of high efficiency 

top-loading clothes washers. (EHP, No. 18 at p. 2) The Joint Comment stated that high 

efficiency top-loading clothes washers are available on the market priced near or below 

$500. (Joint Comment, No. 15 at p. 4)

According to AHAM, ALS, GE, and Whirlpool, consumer preference supports 

maintaining clothes washer product class distinction by method of access. ALS 

commented that most consumers prefer not to stoop or bend while loading clothes, which 

Consumer Preference and Market Share
45

is not required for a top-loading clothes washer. GE estimated that top-loading residential 

clothes washers account for about 65 percent of the U.S. market. Whirlpool commented

that one-third of consumers who purchased front-loaders have switched back to highefficiency top-loaders. Whirlpool listed as contributing factors the existence of high 

efficiency top-loading clothes washers with better utility than front-loaders in terms of 

ergonomics, vibration, noise, cycle times, value proposition, sour smell, ease of use, and 

familiarity. Whirlpool further noted that front-loader sales have slowed even though 84 

percent of consumers say energy conservation is very important to them when buying an 

appliance. ALS stated that it had recently received a letter from a consumer supporting 

Whirlpool’s statement that many consumers who purchased front loaders subsequently 

switched back to top loaders. (AHAM, No. 24 at p. 2; ALS, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 7 at p. 45; ALS, No. 13 at pp. 2, 4; GE, No. 20 at pp. 1–2; Whirlpool, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 7 at p. 44; Whirlpool, No. 22 at pp. 2–3)

EHP stated that the means of loading is merely a convenience factor for 

consumers. (EHP, No. 18 at p. 2) ASAP, the California Utilities, NEEP, and PG&E 

commented that the growth in front-loader market share from 15 percent 5 years ago to 

approximately 35 percent now indicates that consumer preference for front-loading 

clothes washers has shifted dramatically recently. The California Utilities also stated that 

consumer preference research that DOE commissioned for the last residential clothes 

washer energy conservation rulemaking indicated that concern for axis of rotation and 

door placement was scored low by consumers.13

 13 The CA Utilities cited the 2001 Residential Clothes Washer Final Rule TSD, Appendices I and J. 

Appendix J details results of consumer analysis performed to determine what clothes washer attributes 

PG&E and the California Utilities 
46

suggested that DOE conduct an analysis of consumer preferences to assess current market 

conditions and trends. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 45; California 

Utilities, No. 19 at p. 3; NEEP, No. 21 at pp. 1–2; PG&E, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

7 at pp. 31, 43)

GE listed larger capacity, reduced vibration, and better cleaning performance as 

additional utilities of top-loading residential clothes washers. (GE, No. 20 at pp. 2–3)

Other Features

d. DOE Response

EPCA provides the criteria under which DOE may define classes for covered 

equipment:

A rule prescribing an energy conservation standard for a type (or class) of covered 

products shall specify a level of energy use or efficiency higher or lower than that which 

applies (or would apply) for such type (or class) for any group of covered products which 

have the same function or intended use, if the Secretary determines that covered products 

within such group –

(A) consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered 

products within such type (or class); or

 consumers value most and how changes in those attributes as a result of standards would affect consumer 

utility and clothes washer prices. Focus group results placed axis of rotation 12th and door placement as 7th

out of a list of 65 possible features. The TSD is available at 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/clothes_washers.html.
47

(B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other products 

within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower 

standard from that which applies (or will apply) to other products within such type (or

class).

In making a determination under this paragraph concerning whether a 

performance-related feature justifies the establishment of a higher or lower standard, the 

Secretary shall consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a feature, and 

such other factors as the Secretary deems appropriate. 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)

In previous rulemakings, DOE has concluded that the method of loading clothes 

in washers (axis of access) is a “feature” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) and, 

consequently, established separate product classes for top-loading and front-loading 

residential clothes washers. 56 FR 22263 (May 14, 1991).

In reviewing comments submitted by interested parties in response to the 

framework document for the current rulemaking, DOE identified at least one consumer 

utility related to the method of loading clothes for residential clothes washers which 

represents a “feature” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4). Specifically, DOE believes 

that the longer cycle times of front-loading residential clothes washers versus cycle times 

for top-loaders are likely to impact consumer utility. (See chapter 5 of the direct final rule 

TSD). Because the longer wash cycle times for front-loaders arise from the reduced 
48

mechanical action of agitation as compared to top-loaders, DOE believes such longer 

cycles may be required to achieve the necessary cleaning, and thereby constitute a 

performance-related utility of front-loading versus top-loading residential clothes washers 

pursuant to the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q).

Based on a review of residential clothes washer models currently listed in the 

CEC product database, DOE concludes that capacity is not a meaningful differentiator 

between top-loaders and front-loaders. DOE acknowledges that top-loading models from 

a single manufacturer achieve the highest capacity—4.3 cubic feet—but multiple frontloading models from two other manufacturers are rated at 4.1–4.2 cubic feet.

Interested parties did not submit sufficient information for DOE to evaluate the 

relative wash performance, vibration, noise, or odor of top-loading versus front-loading 

clothes washers.

DOE does not consider first cost a “feature” that provides consumer utility for 

purposes of EPCA analysis. DOE acknowledges that price is an important consideration 

to consumers, especially low-income purchasers, but DOE accounts for such consumer 

impacts in the LCC and PBP analyses conducted in support of this rulemaking.

Given the above discussion, DOE concludes that top-loading washers provide 

consumer utilities that, in the context of residential clothes washers, are a feature for 
49

purposes of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4). Therefore, DOE retains the product class distinction 

between top-loading and front-loading clothes washers in this final rule.

In response to the comments related to impacts on the relative market share of 

top-loading versus front-loading residential clothes washers, DOE considered the crossprice elasticity of demand for top-loading and front-loading residential clothes washers in 

its shipments analysis. The results of this analysis are presented in chapter 9 of the direct 

final rule TSD.

Finally, DOE considered the impacts on manufacturers in its manufacturer 

impacts analysis (see chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD).

3. Compact Product Class

ASAP, BSH, and EHP stated that DOE should consider defining a single compact 

product class encompassing both top-loading and front-loading clothes washers. Such a 

product class definition would shift front-loading compact-size clothes washers from the 

current front-loading product class to the existing top-loading compact product class, 

which would be redesignated simply as “compact” to eliminate the top-loading 

distinction. Alternatively, BSH proposed that a compact front-loading product class be 

defined with a capacity equal to or less than two cubic feet. BSH commented that 

compact-size front-loaders would have difficulty achieving the same efficiency as 

standard-size front-loaders, yet they provide specific utility due to their ability to fit in

small living spaces in areas of high population density. AHAM and BSH noted that 
50

capacity is one of the general criteria for defining separate product classes. (ASAP, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 47; BSH, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 

40; BSH, No. 11 at pp. 2,3, 5; EHP, No. 18 at p. 2) 

The Joint Petition proposes a new front-loading, compact product class and 

proposes energy conservations standard levels for both the top-loading and front-loading 

compact product classes. (Joint Petition, No. 32 at p.8)

Based on these comments, DOE is retaining the top-loading compact product 

class and adding a front-loading compact product class, as proposed in the Joint Petition.

4. Product Class Summary

Table III-1 presents the product classes set forth in DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR 

430.32(g) and the product classes established in this rulemaking.

Table III-1 Clothes Washer Product Classes

Product Classes in 430.32(g)

Product Classes Established

in this Rulemaking

i. Top-loading, compact

(less than 1.6 cubic feet capacity

ii. Top-loading, standard

(1.6 cubic feet or greater capacity)

iii. Top-loading, semiautomatic

iv. Front-loading

v. Suds-saving

i. Top-loading, compact

(less than 1.6 cubic feet capacity)

ii. Top-loading, standard

(1.6 cubic feet or greater capacity)

iii. Front-loading, compact

(less than 1.6 cubic feet capacity)

iv. Front-loading, standard

(1.6 cubic feet or greater capacity)
51

B.

As noted previously, the DOE test procedures for residential clothes washers 

appear at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendices J1 and J2. Until the compliance date of 

the amended energy and water conservation standards established in today’s direct final 

rule, absent withdrawal of the rule by DOE pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), 

manufacturers must use the test procedures at appendix J1 to certify compliance. 

Subsequently, manufacturers must use the test procedures at appendix J2.

Test Procedure

DOE established the test procedure at appendix J2 on March 7, 2012 (77 FR 

13888) to incorporate standby mode energy consumption as well as to update various 

active mode testing provisions. EISA 2007 amended EPCA to require DOE to amend its 

test procedures to integrate measures of standby mode and off mode energy consumption 

into the overall energy efficiency, energy consumption, or other energy descriptor for 

each covered product unless the current test procedure already fully accounts for and 

incorporates standby and off mode energy consumption or such integration is technically 

infeasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)) In addition to incorporating standby power 

provisions, DOE received comments in response to the August 2009 framework 

document stating that it should also consider changes to the active mode provisions in the

test procedure.

DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking issued on September 21, 2010 

(75 FR 57556) (hereinafter referred to as the September 2010 TP NOPR) to propose 

amendments regarding both standby mode and active mode provisions of the test 
52

procedure, including the following: (1) incorporating standby and off mode power 

consumption into a combined energy metric; (2) addressing technologies not covered by 

the appendix J1 test procedure, such as steam wash cycles and self-clean cycles; (3) 

revising the number of annual wash cycles; (4) updating use factors; (5) revising the 

procedures and specifications for test cloth; (6) redefining the appropriate water fill level 

for the capacity measurement method; (7) establishing a new measure of water 

consumption; and (8) revising the definition of the energy test cycle.

The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) published IEC Standard 

62301, “Household electrical appliances–Measurement of standby power,” Edition 2.0 

2011-01 (IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition)) on January 27, 2011. DOE reviewed this 

updated test procedure and determined that it improves the measurement of standby mode 

and off mode energy use compared to the previous version of the standard. Therefore, 

DOE published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking on August 9, 2011 (76 FR 

49238) (hereinafter referred to as the August 2011 TP SNOPR) to integrate new 

measures of standby power consumption according to IEC Standard 62301 (Second 

Edition) and to incorporate additional amendments to the active mode provisions, 

including the following: (1) revising the calculations for per-cycle energy use and annual 

energy cost; (2) updating the load adjustment factor; (3) clarifying the method for 

determining the energy test cycle; (4) clarifying the method for setting the wash time for 

certain clothes washers; (5) allowing the use of the most current AHAM Standard 

detergent; (6) clarifying the definition of “cold wash” for clothes washers that offer both 

“cold wash” and “tap cold wash” settings; and (7) performing various minor technical 
53

corrections. DOE published a second a second supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking on November 9, 2011 (76 FR 69870) to propose a revised definition of the 

energy test cycle. DOE published the final rule on March 7, 2012 (77 FR 13888),

establishing the test procedure at appendix J2.

When conducting the test procedure rulemaking, DOE considered comments 

received on the clothes washer test procedure submitted as part of this rulemaking for 

energy conservation standards. In the framework document, DOE requested input on its 

test procedures for residential clothes washers and sought input, including supporting 

data, regarding how these procedures can be improved. In response to the framework 

document, DOE received several comments from interested parties regarding potential 

amendments to the DOE clothes washer test procedure to address the following issues: 

(1) the capacity measurement; (2) the test load size specification; (3) the energy and 

water use of self-clean cycles; (4) the energy and water use of steam cycles; (5) 

parameters representing consumer usage patterns; (6) the addition of a cleaning 

performance metric; (7) the remaining moisture content (RMC) measurement; (8) the 

measurement of standby and off mode energy use; (9) test cloth issues; (10) technical 

edits; and (11) anti-circumvention.

1. Capacity Measurement

DOE’s clothes washer test procedure at appendix J1 states that, for measuring the 

capacity of the clothes washer, the clothes container shall be manually filled with water 

to “its uppermost edge.” This requirement can be interpreted in multiple ways, resulting 
54

in different capacity measurements that would each be allowable under the test 

procedure.

The Joint Comment stated that DOE should ensure that all data collected for this 

rulemaking be based on a consistent measurement of capacity, particularly because 

advertised capacity may be expressed using a conversion factor of 15/13 applied to the 

capacity measured under the DOE test procedure to approximate the capacity that would 

be measured using the international test standard promulgated by the IEC. The Joint 

Comment and Samsung stated that the measured clothes container volume can exceed the 

wetted space occupied by laundry by 15–20 percent or more. This could result in similar 

variation in MEF. The Joint Comment suggested that DOE determine whether such 

measurement uncertainty still exists for current vertical-axis clothes washers, and 

whether the capacity measurement in the test procedure should be modified for both 

vertical-axis and horizontal-axis clothes washers. (Joint Comment, No. 15, p. 2; 

Samsung, No. 25 at p. 1) ASAP commented that DOE should understand the difference 

between advertised capacity and the capacity that is reported to ENERGY STAR, the 

CEC, and other public databases, because the advertised capacity is typically larger than 

the reported values. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 20)

ALS commented that the test procedure should be revised to clarify that, for 

vertical-axis clothes washers, the “uppermost edge” would refer to the “top of the tub 

cover.” (ALS, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 22; ALS, No. 13 at p. 1)1) Samsung 

commented that there are various interpretations of what constitutes the usable volume 
55

and how the capacity is measured on vertical-axis clothes washers. According to 

Samsung, one such interpretation is to measure the volume to the top of the tub cover,

even though the user is instructed to load to below the tub cover in a typical use and care 

guide. Samsung estimates that loading to the top of the tub cover could result in a 15–20 

percent increase in the capacity measurement of vertical-axis clothes washers (compared 

to loading to the level recommended in the use and care guide), which would also 

overstate the MEF and WF of the unit by 15–20 percent. Therefore, Samsung proposed 

possible language to clarify the capacity measurement in DOE’s clothes washer test 

procedure based on wording from IEC Standard 60456, “Clothes washing machines for 

household use–Methods for measuring the performance,” (IEC Standard 60456) Edition 

5, Committee Draft for Vote (FDIS). The fill level in the DOE test procedure would thus 

be defined as the “uppermost edge which may be used to fill in clothes, respecting 

manufacturer instructions.” (Samsung, No. 25 at p. 1)

BSH commented that a volumetric capacity metric is misleading when comparing 

conventional vertical-axis, high efficiency vertical-axis, and horizontal-axis clothes 

washers because more volume does not necessarily correspond with more load capacity. 

Performance should be related to load size rather than drum volume for consumer 

comparisons. (BSH, No. 11 at p. 2) 

DOE recognizes that the clothes container capacity measurement in appendix J1 

could be interpreted in multiple ways. To provide manufacturers with additional guidance

prior to issuance of the March 2012 TP final rule, DOE issued an interpretive rule on July 

Comment [A6]: Change recommended by OIRA.
56

26, 2010. In the interpretive rule, DOE provided clarifications to the methods for 

measuring clothes container capacity for both top-loading and front-loading clothes 

washers using the appendix J1 test procedure. This interpretive rule can be found on 

DOE’s website at: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/cw_guidance_faq.

pdf.

In the March 2012 TP final rule, DOE established a different capacity 

measurement procedure at appendix J2 to provide for a clearer, more consistent and more 

easily repeatable measurement. Under appendix J1, DOE’s guidance document instructs 

manufacturers to measure the fill level for top-loading clothes washers at the innermost 

diameter of the tub cover (defined as “Fill Level 3” in the guidance). For the reasons 

discussed in the March 2012 TP final rule, the revision to the capacity measurement in 

appendix J2 requires manufacturers to measure the fill level for top-loading clothes 

washers to the uppermost edge of the rotating portion of the basket, including the balance 

ring (defined as “Fill Level 2” in DOE’s interpretive guidance). 

For front-loaders, under both appendix J1 and appendix J2, the fill level must not 

exceed the highest point of contact between the door and the door seal, excluding any 

portion of the door or door seal that would occupy the measured volume space when the 

door is closed. This is consistent with the instructions provided for front-loaders in 

DOE’s guidance document.
57

DOE used the revised capacity measurement for top-loaders in determining the 

conversion formulas from MEF to IMEF and WF to IWF in today’s final rule. For more 

details of the testing and analysis, see chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD. 

DOE notes that the FTC promulgates labeling requirements for residential clothes 

washers, which would govern marketing claims made by the manufacturer regarding 

capacity.

2. Test Load Size

Table 5.1 of the DOE clothes washer test procedure specifies test cloth load sizes 

necessary to conduct the energy cycles. Minimum, maximum, and average load sizes are 

defined as a function of clothes washer capacity. Currently, the maximum load size 

provided in the table is 3.80 cubic feet (ft3

). No provision exists for determining load size 

if capacity exceeds that limit. 10 CFR 430 subpart B appendix J1.

AHAM, ALS, GE and Whirlpool support a linear extension of the load size table 

to larger capacities. AHAM, GE, and Whirlpool recommend extending the table for 

capacities up to 6.0 ft3

. Whirlpool noted that DOE granted a waiver which extended the 

table to a capacity of 4.1 ft3

, and ALS stated it agreed with this waiver. (AHAM, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 21; AHAM, No. 16 at p. 2; ALS, No. 13 at p. 1; GE, No. 

20 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 1) The Joint Comment objected to the extension of 

Table 5.1 to a capacity of 6 ft3 without verifying the validity of the resulting load sizes 

with current consumer data. (Joint Comment, No. 15 at pp. 1–2)
58

DOE reviewed current residential clothes washer product databases from sources 

such as CEC and ENERGY STAR, and observed reported capacities as large as 4.7 ft3

. In 

response to comments received in response to the September 2010 TP NOPR,, DOE 

extended Table 5.1 in the amended test procedure to include capacities up to 6.0 ft3 to 

accommodate additional increases in capacity expected in the future. As described fully 

in the September 2010 TP NOPR and March 2012 TP final rule, DOE determined that the 

linear relationship between test load size and container capacity in appendix J1 is valid, 

and therefore used the same linear relationship to extend Table 5.1 to 6.0 ft3

. (17 FR 

13888)

3. Self Clean Cycles

DOE’s clothes washer test procedure specifies energy test cycles, the energy and 

water use of which are averaged to calculate the MEF and WF of the unit under 

consideration. These energy test cycles are selected from among various cycle settings 

provided by the manufacturer for laundering clothing. They do not include any cycles or 

pre-set settings provided for the purpose of cleaning, sanitizing, or deodorizing any of the 

clothes washer components. DOE observed in its test sample of units for the preliminary 

analysis that a dedicated self-clean function is a prevalent feature, found in virtually all 

front-loading clothes washers and in certain top-loading models as well.

ASAP and the Joint Comment stated that the measurement of MEF and WF 

should account for the energy and water use of self-clean cycles. The Joint Comment 
59

further stated that such a measurement would provide not only a more accurate 

assessment of machine efficiency, but also a benefit to those clothes washer designs that 

address mold and odor issues without requiring periodic sanitizing cycles. (ASAP, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 19; Joint Comment, No. 15 at p. 3)

In the September 2010 TP NOPR, DOE proposed a usage factor of 12 annual selfclean cycles for incorporating the energy used in self-clean cycles. DOE based its usage 

factor on typical manufacturer instructions that recommend using this feature once each 

month. DOE received comments stating that consumer usage data on self-clean cycles 

was insufficient to validate the usage factors it proposed in the test procedure NOPR. In 

addition, there is uncertainty as to whether a self-clean cycle should be tested only if it is 

a specific feature provided by the manufacturer, or if a conventional cycle that the 

manufacturer recommends the consumer to run periodically for the purpose of cleaning 

or sanitizing the clothes washer should also be tested as a self-clean cycle. Finally, DOE 

is concerned about the increased test burden required for testing self-clean cycles given 

the relatively small amount of annual energy used in these periodic cycles. For these 

reasons, DOE did not include the energy and water use of self-clean cycles in the 

modified test procedure. 

4. Steam Cycles

The energy test cycles specified in the DOE clothes washer test procedure do not 

include provisions for testing any cycles incorporating steam injection. DOE is aware of a 

number of clothes washers available on the market that offer a steam feature as either a 
60

stand-alone cycle or as an add-on to a traditional wash cycle. DOE notes that steam 

features are available on primarily some higher-end front-loading clothes washers.

ASAP and the Joint Comment stated that DOE should amend the test procedure to 

account for the impact of steam cycle use. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 

19; Joint Comment, No. 15 at p. 3)

In the September 2010 TP NOPR, DOE proposed a temperature usage factor of 

0.02 to incorporate the energy used in steam cycles. DOE believed that extra hot and 

steam cycles would be reserved for the most heavily soiled loads, and would have similar 

use factors. DOE assumed that the steam wash cycles would be selected somewhat fewer 

times than the extra hot cycle because on some models steam is available only as an 

option on certain settings. DOE received comments stating that consumer usage data on 

steam cycles is insufficient to validate the temperature usage factors it proposed in the 

September 2010 TP NOPR. Furthermore, DOE notes that because there is significant 

variation in how individual manufacturers implement steam features, creating a universal 

definition of a steam cycle for the energy test cycle would be difficult. Finally, DOE is 

concerned about the increased test burden required for testing steam cycles given the 

relatively small amount of annual energy used in these cycles. For these reasons, DOE 

did not include the energy and water use of steam cycles in the modified test procedure. 
61

5. Consumer Usage Patterns

Various factors are provided in the DOE clothes washer test procedure to properly 

account for consumer usage patterns, including the number of use cycles per year, 

selection of load sizes, selection of temperature settings, and the percentage of washed 

clothes loads that are dried in a clothes dryer.

ALS supported reducing annual usage to 300 cycles, based on Procter & Gamble 

consumer studies. The Joint Comment stated DOE should collect data on current 

consumer laundry usage to validate or update the cycles per year, estimates of “average” 

load size among clothes washers of varying capacities, annual load size usage factors, 

temperature use factors, and dryer use factor. The Joint Comment stated that DOE should 

ensure that there is no systematic bias in these factors favoring larger capacities. The 

Joint Comment also requested that DOE reassess the load adjustment factor, which was 

established in the 1990s. (ALS, No. 13 at p. 1; Joint Comment, No. 15 at pp. 1–3)

In the March 2012 TP final rule, DOE reduced the number of annual cycles to 295 

based on a survey of available consumer usage data and comments received from 

interested parties. DOE increased the dryer usage factor to 0.91 based on the most recent 

consumer survey data available.

DOE is unaware of any updated consumer usage data regarding load sizes among 

clothes washers of varying capacities and load size usage factors. Therefore, DOE did not 

amend the load usage factors or the linear relationship used to determine load size based 
62

on clothes washer capacity in the modified test procedure. Similarly, DOE did not 

identify any evidence that suggests any unwarranted bias in favor or larger capacities in 

the test procedure.

DOE received additional information from commenters regarding temperature use 

factors (TUFs). The information received contained significant disparities, however, and 

no information supporting particular TUFs was more persuasive or reliable than 

information supporting other TUFs. Therefore, the information provided no basis upon 

which to change the TUF values in the appendix J1 test procedure, and DOE retained 

these TUFs in appendix J2. DOE did, however, establish a new TUF for a full warm 

wash/warm rinse cycle and eliminated the incremental use factor attributed to warm rinse

in appendix J1.

Finally, DOE determined that the load adjustment factor (LAF) is duplicative of, 

yet inconsistent with, the load usage factors. Therefore, for consistency with the rest of 

the test procedure, DOE amended the representative load size calculation in the equation 

for drying energy to incorporate the load usage factors rather than a separate LAF. DOE 

replaced the LAF with a weighted-average load size, calculated by multiplying the 

minimum, average, and maximum load usage factors by the minimum, average, and 

maximum load sizes, respectively, and summing the products. 
63

6. Standard Extractor RMC Test Procedure

The DOE test procedure contains provisions for evaluating the moisture 

absorption and retention characteristics of a lot of test cloth by measuring the RMC in a 

standard extractor at a specified set of conditions.

AHAM submitted detailed recommendations of changes to the methodology used 

for the Standard Extractor RMC Test Procedure included in the overall clothes washer 

test procedure. Whirlpool and GE stated that they support AHAM’s recommendations. 

(AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 21; AHAM, No. 16 at p. 2; GE, No. 20 at 

p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 1) DOE largely agrees with AHAM’s recommendations and 

implemented many of them in the revised test procedure.

7. Performance Metric

DOE’s clothes washer test procedure provides a measure of representative energy 

and water use. It does not evaluate cleaning or rinsing performance or fabric care. 

AHAM, BSH, GE, and Whirlpool commented that DOE should add a performance 

measure, particularly because at the higher efficiency levels, clothes washers are reaching 

the limit where product performance and consumer satisfaction may not be economically 

reached. AHAM noted that its clothes washer standard, ANSI/AHAM HLW-1-2007, 

“Performance Evaluation Procedures for Household Clothes Washers,” addresses 

performance and is substantially harmonized with IEC Standard 60456. Whirlpool also 

noted that ANSI/AHAM HLW-1-2007 provides performance measurement. ALS and 

BSH also recommended review of IEC Standard 60456 for methods of assessing 
64

performance, and ALS recommended review of the Australian standard AS/NZS 2040.1. 

(AHAM, No. 16 at p. 2; ALS, No. 13 at p. 2; BSH, No. 11 at p. 2; GE, No. 20 at p. 1; 

Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 2) ALS stated it had not yet determined whether it would support 

a performance metric, or what a measurement method for measuring performance would 

be, although it added that it is concerned that energy conservation standards have reached 

the point where higher levels will cause unacceptable performance, especially for 

vertical-axis top-loaders. (ALS, No. 13 at p. 1) 

DOE test procedures must be reasonably designed to produce test results that 

measure energy efficiency, energy use, water use in specified instances, or estimated 

annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative use cycle or period of 

use. 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3). DOE notes that the measurement of energy efficiency or 

energy or water use presumes the proper functioning of a product. DOE considers utility 

in setting energy conservation standards, and DOE may not prescribe a standard that is 

likely to result in the unavailability in the United States of performance characteristics, 

including reliability. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV), (o)(4) DOE has considered 

performance generally in the development of these standards and does not believe that 

the standards established in today’s final rule would adversely impact the utility of 

residential clothes washers.

8. Standby Power

In the framework document, DOE noted that it considered incorporating certain 

provisions of IEC Standard 62301, “Household electrical appliances–Measurement of
65

standby power”, First Edition 2005-06 (IEC Standard 62301 (First Edition)) in 

accordance with requirements of EISA 2007. DOE further noted that it would consider an 

updated version of IEC Standard 62301 in its residential clothes washer test procedure 

rulemaking. In response to the framework document, DOE received comments regarding 

the inclusion of standby and off mode power consumption in its clothes washer test 

procedure and its consideration of the updated version of IEC Standard 62301.

ALS commented that it supports revising the test procedure to add provisions for 

measuring standby power. (ALS, No. 13, No. 1) The California Utilities stated that DOE 

should make a determination of the metrics that it will use for clothes washer energy 

conservation standards, because if standby and off mode power is incorporated, MEF 

might not be used to regulate clothes washers in this rulemaking. According to the 

California Utilities, it would be detrimental to proceed with the preliminary analysis 

without finalizing possible changes to the metric. (California Utilities, No. 19 at p. 1) 

Whirlpool stated that standby power should be incorporated into MEF, rather than 

addressed as a separate metric. (Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 2) ASAP, the California Utilities, 

the Joint Comment, and NEEP urged DOE to proceed with the clothes washer test 

procedure rulemaking without waiting further for the release of an updated version of 

IEC Standard 62301. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 18; California 

Utilities, No. 19 at p. 1; Joint Comment, No. 15 at p. 1; NEEP, No. 21 at p. 1) ASAP also 

commented that the mode definitions in IEC Standard 62301 are not necessarily 

comparable to DOE’s statutory mode definitions, and that it may not be advisable to use 

the IEC definitions. (ASAP, Public Meeting, No. 7 at p. 19)
66

In the September 2010 TP NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference into 

the clothes washer test procedure specific provisions from IEC Standard 62301 (First 

Edition) regarding test conditions and test procedures for measuring standby mode and 

off mode power consumption. DOE also proposed to adopt certain provisions from the 

IEC Standard 62301 Committee Draft for Vote (CDV) version (an earlier draft version of 

the IEC 62301 revision), as well as the Final Draft International Standard (FDIS) version 

(the draft version developed just prior to the issuance of the Second Edition).

Specifically, DOE proposed to adopt the 30-minute stabilization and 10-minute 

measurement periods as described in the CDV version and the mode definitions for 

active, standby and off mode as described in the FDIS version.

In the August 2011 TP SNOPR, DOE evaluated IEC Standard 62301 (Second 

Edition) and concluded that the application of the provisions of the Second Edition to all 

power measurements in standby mode and off mode for clothes washers would be an 

improvement over the First Edition and would not be unduly burdensome to conduct. 

Therefore, DOE proposed incorporating by reference the relevant paragraphs of section 4 

and section 5 of IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition) in the clothes washer test 

procedure.

In the March 2012 TP final rule, DOE incorporated by reference the relevant 

paragraphs of section 4 and section 5 of IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition) in the 

clothes washer test procedure. DOE integrated standby and off mode energy use into its
67

revised clothes washer test procedure by establishing an IMEF metric based on 

measurements made according to certain provisions of this updated IEC standard. 

[INSERT FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION]. Accordingly, DOE based its analysis 

for clothes washer energy conservation standards in today’s direct final rule on this IMEF

metric.

DOE notes that AHAM provided a related comment in response to the Request 

for Information (RFI) issued by DOE to implement Executive Order 13563, “Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review (76 FR 6123, Feb. 3, 2011), opposing any test 

procedure requirement to measure separately the energy use of delay start and cycle 

finished modes.14 AHAM stated that the additional burden that would be required to 

measure a de minimis amount of energy would not be justified (AHAM, IRRR, No. 10 at 

pp. 5–6)

15

Based on the results of the data presented in the August 2011 TP SNOPR, DOE 

believes that including a specific measurement of energy use of a cycle finished feature 

that incorporates intermittent tumbling and air circulation would not significantly impact 

the total annual energy consumption. Furthermore, measuring the energy use over the 

entire duration of cycle finished mode would increase the test duration by up to 10 hours, 

depending on the maximum duration of cycle finished mode provided on the clothes 

 14 Definitions of operating modes, including cycle finished, delayed start, active washing, inactive, and off 

modes, are provided in the March 2012 TP final rule. [INSERT FR CITATION] 15 The notation in the form “AHAM, IRRR, No. 10 at pp. 5–6” identifies a written comment that DOE has 

received and has included in the docket of the Request for Information (RFI) to implement Executive Order 

13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (76 FR 6123, Feb. 3, 2011). (Docket No. DOE-HQ2011-0014). This particular notation refers to a comment (1) submitted by Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (AHAM), (2) in document number 10 in the docket of that RFI, and (3) appearing on pages

5–6 of document number 10.
68

washer under test. DOE believes this would represent a significant increase in test burden 

that would not be warranted by the minimal additional energy use captured by measuring 

cycle finished mode separately or as part of the active washing mode.

Therefore, in the March 2012 TP final rule, DOE did not adopt provisions to 

measure cycle finished mode separately or as part of the active washing mode. DOE 

believes that measuring power consumption of each mode separately would introduce 

significant test burden without a corresponding improvement in a representative measure 

of annual energy use. Therefore, DOE provided in the March 2012 TP final rule for 

measuring total energy consumption, in which all low-power mode hours are allocated to 

the inactive and off modes, and the low-power mode power consumption is measured 

only in the inactive and off modes, depending on which of these modes is present.

9. Test Cloth

Different lots of energy test cloth used in the clothes washer test procedure are 

released to the industry at least once a year, and the properties of the test cloth must be 

measured and standardized against reference historical lots. AHAM and ALS support 

revisions to the clothes washer test procedure for improving the process to correlate new 

test cloth batches to the historical lots. AHAM provided a proposal for an industrydeveloped auditing program, as well as suggested specifications for test cloth tolerances. 

GE supports this proposal. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at pp. 21–22; 

AHAM, No. 16 at p. 2; ALS, No. 13 at p. 1; GE, No. 20 at p. 1) Whirlpool noted that the 

test cloth is currently available from one supplier that has limited capability to meet 
69

industry’s needs. Whirlpool suggested that DOE assume responsibility for test cloth 

procurement and qualification. (Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 1) DOE is currently working with 

industry, suppliers, and test laboratories to develop an auditing program that meets 

industry’s needs. Qualification tests are being conducted at an independent test laboratory 

as well as at DOE’s Appliance Testing and Evaluation Center (ATEC).

10. Technical Edits

AHAM and GE suggested that DOE remove obsolete sections of the clothes 

washer test procedure in guidelines that AHAM submitted to DOE on September 22, 

2008. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 21; AHAM, No. 16 at p. 2; GE, 

No. 20 at p. 1) DOE agreed with these suggestions and removed the obsolete provisions 

in the revised test procedure as part of the residential clothes washer test procedure 

rulemaking.

11. Anti-Circumvention

EPCA requires that test procedures be reasonably designed to produce test results 

which measure energy efficiency, energy use, water use or estimated annual operating 

cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use, as 

determined by the Secretary. 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3). This statutory requirement may be 

undermined if products are purposefully designed to use controls or features that produce 

test results that are so unrepresentative of a product’s actual energy or water consumption 

as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. The Joint Comment stated that 

DOE should ensure that the test procedure is not vulnerable to circumvention and should 
70

prohibit any mode or other operating function that is designed solely or primarily to 

reduce energy and water consumption during testing. According to the Joint Comment,

sophisticated and inexpensive electronic controls may detect the DOE testing conditions 

and minimize energy and water use under those specific conditions. The Joint Comment 

described as an illustrative example a clothes washer with adaptive fill control that could 

be programmed to minimize the fill level when it measured a clothes load size at exactly 

the weight of the average DOE test load for that capacity machine. (Joint Comment, No. 

15 at p. 3) DOE considered issues of circumvention in its clothes washer test procedure 

rulemaking.

C.

1. General

Technological Feasibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercially 

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

subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i).
71

After DOE has determined that particular technology options are technologically 

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

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

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

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

clothes washers, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and 

those that are the basis for the efficiency levels considered in this rulemaking. For further 

details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the direct final rule 

TSD.

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

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

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

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

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

technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for residential 

clothes washers, using the design parameters that lead to the creation of the most efficient

products available on the market or in working prototypes. (See chapter 5 of the direct 

final rule TSD.) The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are 

described in section IV.C.4 of this final rule.
72

D.

1. Determination of Savings

Energy Savings

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

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

rulemaking.

16 For each TSL, DOE forecasted energy savings beginning in 2015, the year 

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

2044. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in 

energy consumption between the standards case and the base case. The base case 

represents the forecast of energy consumption in the absence of amended mandatory 

efficiency standards, and considers market demand for more efficient products. 

The NIA spreadsheet model calculates the electricity savings in site energy 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administration’s (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2010 (AEO2010).

2. Significance of Savings

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

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

 16 The NIA spreadsheet model is described in section IV.G of this notice.
73

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

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

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

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

considered in this rulemaking are nontrivial, and, therefore, DOE considers them 

“significant” within the meaning of section 325 of EPCA.

E.

1. Specific Criteria

Economic Justification

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

determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. 

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

each of those seven factors in this rulemaking.

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

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

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

includes both a short-term assessment—based on the cost and capital requirements during 

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

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

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

revenue and income, and other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE 
74

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

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

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

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

into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and other regulatory 

requirements on manufacturers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

throughout the forecast period applicable to a particular rulemaking.

b. Life-Cycle Costs

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

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

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

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

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

product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance and repair costs, 
75

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

consumers will purchase the considered products in 2015. 

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

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

to each value. A distinct advantage of this approach is that DOE can identify the 

percentage of consumers estimated to receive LCC savings or experience an LCC 

increase, in addition to the average LCC savings associated with a particular standard 

level. In addition to identifying ranges of impacts, DOE evaluates the LCC impacts of 

potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected 

disproportionately by a national standard.

c. Energy Savings

Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement 

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

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

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

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

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

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

impact of potential standard levels, DOE sought to develop standards for residential 

clothes washers that would not lessen the utility or performance of those products. (42 
76

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) DOE believes that the TSLs adopted in today’s direct final 

rule would not reduce the utility or performance of the clothes washers under 

consideration in this rulemaking.

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

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

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

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

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

days of the publication of a direct final rule, together with an analysis of the nature and 

extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) DOE published a NOPR 

containing energy conservation standards identical to those set forth in today’s direct 

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

to the Attorney General, requesting that the Department of Justice (DOJ) provide its 

determination on this issue. DOE will consider DOJ’s comments on the rule in 

determining whether to proceed with the direct final rule. DOE will also publish and 

respond to DOJ’s comments in the Federal Register in a separate notice. 

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

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

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

the demand for electricity also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability 
77

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

standards may affect the nation’s needed power generation capacity. 

Energy savings from the proposed standards also are likely to result in 

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

gases associated with energy production. DOE reports the environmental effects from 

today’s standards, and from each TSL it considered, in the environmental 

assessmentemissions analysis contained in chapter 15 in the direct final rule TSD and in 

section V.B.6 of this notice. DOE also reports estimates of the economic value of 

emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs.

g. Other Factors

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

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

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

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

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

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

advocates) and contains recommendations with respect to an energy conservation 

standard that are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). DOE has encouraged the 

submission of consensus agreements as a way to bring diverse interested parties together, 

to develop an independent and probative analysis useful in DOE standard setting, and to 

expedite the rulemaking process. DOE also believes that standard levels recommended in 
78

the consensus agreement may increase the likelihood for regulatory compliance, while 

decreasing the risk of litigation.

2. Rebuttable Presumption

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

presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the 

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

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

calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE’s LCC and PBP analyses 

generate values used to calculate the effect potential amended energy conservation 

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

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

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

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

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

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

determination of economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation 

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

rule TSD.
79

IV. Methodology and Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

assessed manufacturer impacts, largely through use of the Government Regulatory 

Impact Model (GRIM). 

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

energy conservation standards for residential clothes washers. DOE used a version of 

EIA’s National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) for the utility and environmental 

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

NEMS to prepare its Annual Energy Outlook, a widely known baseline energy forecast 

for the United States. For more information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy 

Modeling System: An Overview, DOE/EIA–0581 (98) (Feb.1998), available at: 

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

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

modifications to the AEO version, is called NEMS-BT.17

 17 EIA approves the use of the name “NEMS” to describe only an AEO version of the model without any 

modification to code or data. Because the present analysis entails some minor code modifications and runs 

the model under various policy scenarios that deviate from AEO assumptions, the name “NEMS-BT” refers 

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

NEMS-BT offers a 
80

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

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

A.

1. General

Market and Technology Assessment

When beginning an energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE develops 

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

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

This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments based primarily on 

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

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

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

manufacturers, regulatory and non-regulatory programs, and technology options that 

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

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

assessment.

2. Products Included in this Rulemaking

This subsection addresses whether EPCA covers certain products and thereby 

authorizes DOE to adopt standards for those products, and whether DOE will consider in 

this rulemaking standards for certain products that DOE determined are covered under 

EPCA.
81

ASAP questioned whether combination washer/dryers are covered products in 

this rulemaking. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 47) “Clothes washer” is 

defined in 10 CFR 430.2 to mean a consumer product designed to clean clothes using a 

water solution of soap or detergent and mechanical agitation or other movement. A 

combination washer/dryer meets this definition and also performs a drying function. As a 

result, DOE determined that combination washer/dryers are covered products according 

to the existing regulatory definition of clothes washer. DOE notes that combination 

washer/dryers are currently being testing by certain manufacturers according to the DOE 

clothes washer test procedure and that certification data is available for such products in, 

among others, the CEC and ENERGY STAR product databases. DOE also does not have 

information that would indicate that, while operating in clothes washer mode, the energy 

and water use of such a machine is inherently different from the energy and water use of 

a stand-alone clothes washer. 

3. Product Classes

Existing energy conservation standards divide residential clothes washers into 

five product classes based on location of access, capacity, and features such as suds 

saving. As mentioned previously in section III.A.1 DOE is not maintaining the toploading semiautomatic and suds-saving product classes. DOE is also splitting the frontloading product class into two separate product classes based on capacity. Table IV-1

presents the product classes set forth in 10 CFR 430.32(g) and the product classes 

established in this rulemaking.
82

Table IV-1 Clothes Washer Product Classes

Product Classes in 430.32(g)

Product Classes Established

in this Rulemaking

i. Top-loading, compact

(less than 1.6 cubic feet capacity

ii. Top-loading, standard

(1.6 cubic feet or greater capacity)

iii. Top-loading, semiautomatic

iv. Front-loading

v. Suds-saving

i. Top-loading, compact

(less than 1.6 cubic feet capacity)

ii. Top-loading, standard

(1.6 cubic feet or greater capacity)

iii. Front-loading, compact

(less than 1.6 cubic feet capacity)

iv. Front-loading, standard

(1.6 cubic feet or greater capacity)

4. Non-Regulatory Programs

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

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

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

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

efficient products through a qualification process.18 To qualify, a product must exceed 

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

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

currently exist for residential clothes washers.

5. Technology Options

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

technologies to consider for improving the efficiency of residential clothes washers. 

Initially, these technologies encompassed all those DOE believes would improve energy 

efficiency and are technologically feasible. Chapter 3 of the direct final rule TSD 

 18 For more information, visit www.energystar.gov.
83

includes the detailed list of all technology options identified for residential clothes 

washers. 19 DOE received multiple comments from interested parties in response to the 

technologies proposed for analysis.

In response to the framework document, interested parties suggested to DOE 

various databases from which it could obtain relevant product features and performance 

data. ALS recommended that DOE examine the CEC, FTC, and DOE certification 

databases, as well as the websites that ALS maintains for its own brands. (ALS, No. 13 at 

p. 2) The California Utilities and PG&E noted discrepancies among several databases, for 

instance that not all clothes washer models appear in all relevant lists, and requested that 

DOE reconcile the differences among them. (California Utilities, No. 19 at p. 4) DOE 

collected information to support this rulemaking from as many publicly available sources 

as it could identify, including trade publications, technical reports, manufacturers’ 

literature, product databases, and inputs from interested parties. As part of its data 

collection, DOE reviewed all of those databases, as well as others that include qualifying 

product lists from ENERGY STAR and the CEE. In doing so, DOE evaluated product 

data critical to its analysis to ensure that appropriate values were being used.

ASAP, the Joint Comment, and PG&E stated that the data collection should 

include more recent data than for 2007. According to ASAP, more recent data would 

capture changes in market share as well as the effects of manufacturer production tax 

 19 DOE notes that it included two technology options, improved horizontal axis washer drum design and 

reduced thermal mass, in its initial list of options, but later determined in its engineering analysis that 

available data did not indicate that these technologies improved energy efficiency of clothes washers. See 

section IV.C.1, 
84

credits. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 122; Joint Comment, No. 15 at p. 

8; PG&E, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 36) DOE attempts to collect the most 

comprehensive and recent data available. For today’s direct final rule, DOE used 

AHAM’s residential clothes washer data submission, which included shipments, 

shipment-weighted efficiency, and market share efficiency data through 2008.

The California Utilities recommended that DOE collect data on sales-weighted 

clothes washer capacity, preferably in increments of 0.5 cubic feet, because they suggest 

that capacity has a greater effect on clothes washer efficiency than do other features. The 

Joint Comment also recommended that shipment data be disaggregated by capacity in at 

most 0.5-cubic-foot increments, and that such data should identify fill control type (i.e., 

adaptive water fill control, manual fill control, or combination adaptive and manual fill 

control). The Joint Comment stated that DOE also should collect shipment data for 

combination washer/dryers. (California Utilities, No. 19 at p. 4; Joint Comment, No. 15

at pp. 4, 8) DOE is unaware of residential clothes washer shipments data disaggregated to 

the granularity suggested by the California Utilities and the Joint Comment. DOE 

requested that interested parties provide such data or information on sources to obtain this 

information but received no further information.

B.

DOE uses the following four screening criteria to determine which technology 

options are suitable for further consideration.

Screening Analysis
85

1) Technological feasibility. DOE will consider technologies incorporated in 

commercial products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. 

(The technological feasibility of options was discussed in the preceding 

section as part of the market and technology assessment.)

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

reliable installation and servicing of a technology in commercial products 

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

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

practicable to manufacture, install, and service.

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

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

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

unavailability of any covered product type with performance characteristics 

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

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

the time, it will not consider this technology further.

4) Adverse impacts on health or safety

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

. If DOE determines that a technology will 

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

technology further.
86

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

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

chapter 4 of the direct final rule TSD.

In the framework document, DOE identified the following initial technology 

options that could improve the efficiency of residential clothes washers, as shown in 

Table IV-2.
87

Table IV-2 Initial Technology Options for Residential Clothes Washers

1. Adaptive control systems

2. Added insulation 

3. Advanced agitation concepts for vertical-axis machines 

4. Automatic fill control 

5. Bubble action 

6. Direct-drive motor 

7. Electrolytic disassociation of water 

8. Horizontal-axis design

9. Horizontal-axis design with recirculation

10. Hot water circulation loop 

11. Improved fill control 

12. Improved horizontal-axis washer drum design 

13. Improved water extraction to lower remaining moisture content 

14. Increased motor efficiency 

15. Low-standby-power design 

16. Ozonated laundering 

17. Plastic particle cleaning 

18. Reduced thermal mass

19. Silver ion injection

20. Spray rinse or similar water-reducing rinse technology

20. Steam washing 

21. Thermostatically controlled mixing valves 

22. Tighter tub tolerance 

23. Ultrasonic washing 

DOE received the following specific comments with regard to the screening 

analysis for the residential clothes washer technology options presented in the framework 

document.

1. Technologies Requiring Clarification or Reclassification

AHAM, BSH, and GE commented that the horizontal-axis, top-loading clothes 

washer described in the framework document should be considered as a horizontal-axis 

product regardless of loading position. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 

53; AHAM, No. 16 at p. 3; BSH, No. 11 at p. 3; GE, No. 20 at p. 1) ALS commented that 

one very small U.S. manufacturer has made a horizontal-axis top-loader, but it has not 
88

been readily accepted by consumers. (ALS, No. 13 at p. 2) As discussed in section 

III.A.2, DOE maintains product class distinction by method of loading for today’s final 

rule. Therefore, DOE considers a horizontal-axis design as a technology to improve the 

efficiency of top-loading clothes washers. DOE notes that such products are currently on 

the market in the United States.

Several manufacturers requested additional information on some of the 

technology options without further comment. AHAM, GE, and Whirlpool requested 

clarification on bubble action, electrolytic disassociation of water, and improved 

horizontal-axis washer drum design. AHAM and GE stated that they sought clarification 

on increased motor efficiency, BSH requested clarification on improved horizontal-axis 

washer drum design and tighter tub tolerance, and Whirlpool requested clarification on 

the reduced thermal mass technology option. ALS stated it would not offer comment on 

electrolytic disassociation of water, ozonated laundering, plastic particle cleaning, and 

ultrasonic washing until more information was available on the technology. (AHAM, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at pp. 52–53; AHAM, No. 16 at p. 3; ALS, No. 13 at p. 

4; BSH, No. 11 at p. 3; GE, No. 20 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 4) ASAP asked 

whether the low standby-power design included both standby and off modes. (ASAP, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 63) Additional detail on each of these technologies 

is provided in chapter 3 of the direct final rule TSD.

DOE requested comment in the framework document on whether additional 

technology options should be considered. ALS and Whirlpool stated that they are 
89

unaware of additional technologies that should be considered in DOE’s preliminary 

analysis. (ALS, No. 13 at p. 5; Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 5) AHAM and GE suggested that 

DOE add turbidity sensors to the list of technology options considered. Whirlpool 

commented that turbidity sensors have not been proven to provide adequate stain 

removal, soil removal, and rinsing performance. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

7 at p. 68; AHAM, No. 16 at p. 4; GE, No. 20 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 5) Multiple 

manufacturers stated to DOE during interviews that turbidity sensors have not been 

implemented in clothes washers largely due to technical barriers such as the high foaming 

properties of U.S. laundry detergents. Therefore, DOE did not add turbidity sensors as a 

technology option.

AHAM, GE, Samsung, and SCE stated that DOE should evaluate smart gridenabled, demand-responsive clothes washers. AHAM and GE identified peak load 

shedding, wherein peak electricity demand is reduced via voluntary curtailment of clothes 

washer usage during certain times, as an important capability of such clothes washers. 

(AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 31; AHAM, No. 16 at p. 4; GE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 31; GE, No. 20 at pp. 1, 3; Samsung, No. 25 at p. 4; SCE, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at pp. 30, 64) DOE is unaware at this time of any such 

clothes washers available on the U.S. market for evaluation in terms of energy and water 

savings. Therefore, DOE did not consider smart-grid or other network-enabled 

technology options in this rulemaking.
90

In the framework document, DOE tentatively included steam washing in the list 

of residential clothes washer technology options. AHAM, GE, and Whirlpool noted that 

steam washing is already available in higher price point clothes washers. BSH stated that 

it has found through laboratory testing that steam washing does not improve cleaning 

performance. (AHAM, No. 16 at p, 4; BSH, No. 11 at p. 3; GE, No. 20 at p. 1; Whirlpool, 

No. 22 at p. 4) DOE research and testing indicates that steam generation requires 

significantly more energy than the potential energy savings associated with using less hot 

water during the wash cycle. Therefore, in the final list of technology options, DOE did 

not consider steam washing as a means to reducing energy consumption.

2. Technological Feasibility

AHAM, BSH, GE, and Whirlpool stated that added insulation would provide no 

meaningful energy savings, resulting in a minimal impact on MEF. BSH also stated that 

added insulation would be an issue for Underwriters Laboratories (UL) listing, and that 

the energy savings associated with horizontal-axis designs that incorporate recirculation 

may be small. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 52; AHAM, No. 16 at p. 3; 

BSH, No. 11 at p. 3; GE, No. 20 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 3) DOE agrees that the 

energy savings associated with added insulation would be negligible, particularly as the 

amount of hot water used in clothes washers decreases. DOE did not observe insulation 

around the tub in any of the units in its test sample, and multiple manufacturers stated 

that there was no energy benefit associated with the use of insulation. Therefore, DOE 

screened out added insulation. For horizontal-axis design with recirculation, DOE 

observes that units incorporating this design are available on the market, and one 
91

manufacturer stated that it can achieve energy savings of about 5 percent. Therefore, 

DOE retained horizontal-axis design with recirculation for its analysis.

AHAM, GE, and Whirlpool commented that standby power accounts for a small 

percentage of total energy consumption—AHAM estimates it accounts for 3 percent of 

annual energy use—so that designs incorporating low standby power would have a 

minimal impact. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 53; AHAM, No. 16 at p. 

3; GE, No. 20 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 4) DOE recognizes that standby power is a 

relatively small percentage of annual clothes washer energy consumption. Under EPCA, 

as amended by EISA 2007, however, DOE is required to integrate standby and off mode 

energy use into the energy efficiency metric if technically feasible and consistent with 42 

USC 6295(o). Today’s final rule includes amendments to include measures for standby 

and off mode power consumption for clothes washers.

DOE received additional comments from interested parties suggesting that DOE 

exclude certain technologies proposed in the framework document from further analysis 

because they already are in widespread use. AHAM, BSH, GE, and Whirlpool 

commented that adaptive control systems, automatic fill control, improved fill control, 

spray rinse or similar water-reducing rinse technologies, and thermostatically controlled 

mixing valves are already widely used in residential clothes washers, although they 

assumed that improved fill control was the same technology as adaptive fill controls. 

AHAM, GE, and Whirlpool stated that direct-drive motors, horizontal-axis designs with 

recirculation, and hot water circulation loops also are widely used. AHAM and GE 
92

further stated that the widespread use of direct-drive motors currently applies only to toploaders, although the technology is also available for front-loaders. Whirlpool added that 

horizontal-axis design is widely used. According to Whirlpool, the efficiency gains from 

these technology options are being recognized already. AHAM, BSH, and GE further 

commented that reduced thermal mass is already in widespread use for horizontal-axis 

clothes washers. AHAM, BSH, GE, and Whirlpool also stated that current products are 

nearing the maximum possible centrifugal force levels, so that no additional energy 

savings could be achieved by improved water extraction to lower remaining moisture 

content. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 53; AHAM, No. 16 at pp. 3–4; 

BSH, No. 11 at p. 3; GE, No. 20 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 22 at pp. 3–4) DOE evaluated 

each of these technologies as part of its reverse-engineering and manufacturer interviews, 

and determined that baseline clothes washers are available that meet current Federal 

standards without the use of such designs, each of which represents a potential means to 

improve energy efficiency. DOE does not consider level of commercialization in itself to 

be an indicator of whether a technology should be screened out. Therefore DOE retained 

all the above mentioned technology options for its analysis.

According to Whirlpool, it routinely pursues increased motor efficiency in its 

product development. (Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 4) Because this technology option meets 

DOE’s screening criteria, it was retained for further analysis.
93

3. Practicability to Manufacture, Install, and Service/Adverse Impacts on Product Utility 

or Availability

AHAM, BSH, GE, and Whirlpool commented that advanced agitation concepts 

already exist in high efficiency top-loading residential clothes washers. Whirlpool stated 

that the cost of this technology option limits its adoption to higher-priced models. 

(AHAM, No. 16 at p. 3; BSH, No. 11 at p. 3; GE, No. 20 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 

3) DOE considers costs of the design options necessary to achieve each efficiency level 

as part of the LCC and PBP analysis. Therefore, DOE retained advanced agitation 

concepts for top-loading machines for its analysis.

For ozonated laundering, AHAM and GE commented that they are aware of such 

technology only for expensive stand-alone units. According to those commenters, it is 

unclear how ozonated laundering could be implemented into the more price-conscious 

residential market. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 53; AHAM, No. 16 at 

p. 3; GE, No. 20 at p. 1) Whirlpool stated that ozonated laundering offers poor cleaning 

performance and is quite costly. (Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 4) ASAP, AWE, and the Joint 

Comment noted that residential clothes washers using ozonated laundry technology 

currently are on the market in Japan. AWE specifically mentioned the Sanyo Aqua Ozone 

combination washer/dryer and stated that ozone is also used by multiple manufacturers 

for commercial laundry. ASAP and the Joint Comment stated that ozonated laundry 

allows significant reductions in water and energy use. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 7 at p. 63; AWE, No. 12 at p. 2; Joint Comment, No. 15 at p. 4) Because no such 

residential clothes washers have been produced or demonstrated for the U.S. market, 
94

DOE does not believe this technology would be practicable to manufacture, install, and 

service on the scale necessary to serve the U.S. residential clothes washer market at the 

time of the effective date of an amended standard. Also, because implementation of this 

technology in a residential application is so limited, DOE is unable to adequately assess 

the impacts on consumer health or utility. For these reasons, DOE screened out ozonated 

laundry.

AHAM, BSH, GE, and Whirlpool stated that plastic particle cleaning does not 

provide effective wash performance. BSH added that other concerns include the 

manufacture, maintenance, and disposal of the plastic particles. (AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 7 at p. 54; AHAM, No. 16 at p. 4; BSH, No. 11 at p. 3; GE, No. 20 at p. 

1; Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 4) Samsung commented that plastic particle cleaning would 

have to be evaluated with consideration of wash and rinse performance. (Samsung, No. 

25 at p. 3) Though clothes washers using plastic particle cleaning exist in working 

prototypes, this technology has not yet been commercialized, and thus consumer utility 

has yet to be thoroughly evaluated in terms of cleaning performance, as well as handling 

of the plastic particles. In addition, because no clothes washer manufacturer is currently

producing such a machine, and because the reliability and consumer habits associated 

with using plastic particles are as yet unknown, DOE believes that it would not be 

practicable to manufacture, install, and service this technology on the scale necessary to 

serve the relevant market at the time of the effective date of an amended standard. For 

these reasons, DOE screened out plastic particle cleaning.
95

Whirlpool commented that tighter tub tolerance can be achieved, but the 

technology option is costly enough to limit its adoption to higher price-point clothes 

washers because a stronger structure is required. (Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 4) Because 

DOE accounts for the cost associated with each design option necessary to achieve a 

certain efficiency level, it did not screen out tighter tub tolerance on this basis and 

retained this design option for consideration in the engineering analysis.

AHAM, BSH, GE, and Whirlpool stated that ultrasonic washing is not a proven 

technology for residential clothes washers. Whirlpool further stated that this technology 

has not been proven to provide adequate stain removal, soil removal, or rinsing 

performance. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 54; AHAM, No. 16 at p. 4; 

BSH, No. 11 at p. 3; GE, No. 20 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 4) DOE’s research 

supports these comments, indicating that ultrasonic washing has not been shown to 

remove soil from clothes adequately. In addition, bubble cavitations caused by standing 

ultrasonic waves potentially could damage fragile clothing or clothing fasteners, further 

reducing product utility. For these reasons, DOE screened out ultrasonic washing.

DOE understands that bubble action has been incorporated into commercially 

available residential clothes washers in Europe and Asia. Because production is 

nonexistent in the U.S., however, DOE does not believe that this technology would be 

practicable to manufacture, install, and service on the scale necessary to serve the 

residential market at compliance date of new standards. For these reasons, DOE screened 

out bubble action.
96

4. Adverse Impacts on Health or Safety

ALS stated that it was not aware of any technologies that should be removed from 

consideration due to safety concerns. (ALS, No. 13 at p. 4)

ASAP and the Joint Comment stated that DOE should retain silver ion injection 

because it provides a deodorizing action in cold water washing and currently is available 

in the U.S. residential clothes washer market. According to the Joint Comment, such 

technology may encourage consumers to use fewer warm and hot water cycles. (ASAP, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 63; Joint Comment, No. 15 at p. 4) Whirlpool 

acknowledged that some manufacturers have incorporated silver ion technology as a 

means of disinfection, but stated that silver has an adverse impact on the environment. 

Whirlpool commented that the U.S. EPA requires that silver used for such a purpose be 

reported and tracked under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. 

(Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 5) The EPA reporting requirement for clothes washers 

incorporating silver does not prevent commercialization of such technology, and DOE is 

not aware that any adverse impacts on health or safety have been demonstrated for this 

technology. Therefore DOE retained this option for consideration in the engineering 

analysis. 

5. Additional Screening Criteria

DOE received a number of comments from interested parties recommending that 

it use additional criteria for screening technology options besides the four listed in 10 
97

CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A at 4(a)(4). AHAM, BSH, GE, and Whirlpool 

commented that technology options also should be evaluated on the basis of wash 

performance, rinse performance, and fabric care (damage, fraying, etc.). (AHAM, No. 16

at p. 4; BSH, No. 11 at 3; GE, No. 20 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 5) Miele, Inc. 

(Miele) questioned whether DOE would be evaluating each technology option on the 

basis of adequate wash performance. (Miele, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 65) 

For this rulemaking, DOE used the screening criteria set forth in its regulations. 

Technologies are evaluated in the screening analysis to determine whether they have an 

adverse impact on product utility or availability. Because DOE believes that the general 

utility of a clothes washer includes the ability to clean clothing adequately, DOE screened 

out those technologies that it believes have not been demonstrated to achieve adequate 

cleaning (i.e., ultrasonic washing, as discussed previously).

Based on comments received regarding the initial technology options, DOE 

retained the design options shown in Table IV-3 for its subsequent engineering analysis. 

These remaining design options met all of the screening criteria listed above.
98

Table IV-3 Design Options Retained for Engineering Analysis

1. Adaptive control systems

2. Advanced agitation concepts for top-loading machines 

3. Automatic water fill control 

4. Direct-drive motor 

5. Horizontal-axis design

6. Horizontal-axis design with recirculation 

7. Hot water circulation loop

8. Improved fill control 

9. Improved horizontal-axis washer drum design 

10. Improved water extraction to lower remaining moisture content 

11. Increased motor efficiency 

12. Low-standby-power electronic controls

13. Reduced thermal mass 

14. Silver ion injection

15. Spray rinse or similar water-reducing rinse technology 

16. Thermostatically controlled mixing valves 

17. Tighter tub tolerance

C.

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

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

incremental manufacturer production costs (MPCs) associated with increasing efficiency 

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

considers technologies not eliminated in the screening analysis, although certain 

technologies are not analyzed if data does not exist to evaluate the energy efficiency

characteristics of the technology; available data suggest that the efficiency benefits of the 

technology are negligible; or for reasons stated in the March 2012 TP final rule, DOE did 

not amend the test procedure to measure the energy impact of these technologies. DOE 

considers the remaining technologies, designated as design options, in developing costefficiency curves, which subsequently are used for the LCC and PBP analyses.

Engineering Analysis
99

DOE has identified the following three methodologies for generating the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

at particular efficiency levels.

DOE conducted the engineering analyses for the top-loading standard and frontloading standard product classes using a combination of the cost-assessment approach

and the efficiency-level approach. The cost-assessment approach provides an accurate 

means for estimating a single manufacturer’s incremental manufacturing costs for 

achieving various levels of increased efficiency. This approach involved physically 

disassembling commercially available products to develop cost-efficiency relationships 

for each manufacturer’s product lines. Because each manufacturer may choose a different 

path to achieve higher levels of efficiency, an efficiency-level approach produces an

industry-wide cost-efficiency relationship for each product class. DOE developed costefficiency relationships for the top-loading standard and front-loading standard product 

classes by calculating the market-weighted average of the individual cost-efficiency 

relationships it developed for each manufacturer.
100

Because less data was available for the top-loading compact and front-loading 

compact product classes, DOE used the design-option approach to develop the costefficiency relationships for these product classes. For the top-loading compact product 

class, DOE developed the cost-efficiency relationship by estimating the incremental costs 

of adding specific design options to a baseline model that would provide sufficient 

improvement in efficiency to achieve the higher efficiency levels considered for the 

analysis. For the front-loading compact product class, DOE estimated the efficiency of a 

baseline product by extrapolating the rated efficiencies of front-loading clothes washers

with capacities nearing those that delineate the compact product class (i.e., 1.6 to 3.0 

cubic feet). DOE then estimated the incremental cost of adding specific design options to 

this baseline model that would improve its efficiency enough to achieve the higher 

efficiency level considered for the analysis.

The efficiency levels that DOE considered in the engineering analysis are 

attainable using technologies currently available on the market for residential clothes 

washers. In addition, to provide interested parties with additional information about 

DOE’s assumptions and results and the ability to perform independent analyses for 

verification, DOE associated each efficiency level with specific technologies that 

manufacturers might use. Chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD describes the 

methodology and results of the efficiency level analysis used to derive the cost-efficiency 

relationships.
101

AHAM, ALS, GE, Samsung, and Whirlpool commented that they support the use 

of an efficiency-level approach for the analysis. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

7 at p. 81; AHAM, No. 16 at p. 5; ALS, No. 13 at p. 9; GE, No. 20 at p. 1; Samsung, No. 

25 at p. 4; Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 6) The Joint Comment stated that it supports a designoption approach, with the most significant design options evaluated separately rather than 

aggregated with other measures to help ensure transparency of the analysis. (Joint 

Comment, No. 15 at p. 5) The California Utilities stated that DOE should give greater 

weight to its reverse-engineering approach to isolate the cost premium of features on 

higher-efficiency clothes washers that may not contribute to or may even adversely affect 

efficiency. (California Utilities, No. 19 at p. 4) As discussed earlier, and as described in 

further detail in chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD, DOE used a combination of these

approaches, as appropriate, to develop the cost-efficiency relationships for each product 

class. The cost-efficiency relationships for each product class reflect only those design 

options that enable higher efficiencies, and exclude other non-efficiency related features 

that may contribute additional cost to higher-efficiency products. Details of the features 

and technologies associated with each efficiency level are also provided in chapter 5.

1. Other Technologies not Analyzed

In performing the engineering analysis, DOE did not consider certain 

technologies that could not be evaluated for one or more of the following reasons: (1) 

data are not available to evaluate the energy efficiency characteristics of the technology; 

(2) available data suggested that the efficiency benefits of the technology would be 

negligible; and (3) for the reasons stated in the March 2012 TP final rule, DOE did not 
102

amend the test procedure to measure the energy impact of these technologies. In its final 

analysis, DOE did not include the following design options:

a. Adaptive Control Systems

In the September 2010 TP NOPR, DOE stated that it was aware of multiple

clothes washer models available on the market that use adaptive control technologies to 

respond to measured or inferred load size and fabric mix. However, as described in the 

August 2011 TP SNOPR, these models have since been discontinued, and DOE is 

unaware of any other residential clothes washers currently on the market offering 

adaptive controls other than adaptive fill control. Adaptive controls could allow a clothes 

washer to sense the fabric mix and soil level of a wash load, for example, and then adjust 

wash parameters such as the number of rinses, cycle time, and water temperatures 

accordingly. DOE is aware that many dishwashers incorporate adaptive controls by 

means of a turbidity sensor that adjusts the number and duration of wash and rinse cycles. 

The dishwasher test procedure accounts for this feature through the use of soiled 

dishware loads. 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix C.

DOE is aware of other industry and international clothes washer test procedures 

that use a soiled wash load to determine wash performance, including AHAM HLW-1, 

“Performance Evaluation Procedures for Household Clothes Washers”; IEC 60456, 

“Clothes washing machines for household use–Methods for measuring the performance”;

and Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand (AS/NZS) 2040.1, “Performance of 

household electrical appliances–Clothes washing machines–Methods for measuring 
103

performance, energy and water consumption.”20 Because of the lack of commercially 

available clothes washers with adaptive features, however, DOE did not amend the test 

procedure in the March 2012 TP final rule to include provisions for measuring the energy 

consumption of clothes washers offering adaptive controls other than adaptive fill 

control. For these reasons, DOE did not include adaptive controls in its engineering 

analysis.

b. Improved Horizontal-Axis Washer Drum Design

Although several manufacturers have claimed improved wash performance and 

greater utility from improved drum designs for front-loading clothes washers, DOE is 

unaware of any publicly available data to corroborate a decrease in cycle time or water 

consumption or an increase in energy efficiency as a result of implementing this design 

option in residential clothes washers. Therefore, DOE did not include this design option 

in its analysis.

c. Reduced Thermal Mass

Reduced thermal mass describes minimizing the amount of energy consumed by 

heating the wash tub to the temperature of the wash water. DOE research suggests that 

manufacturers typically already use tubs with low thermal mass for all clothes washers 

and that there is no practicable way to manufacture clothes washers with significantly 

lower thermal mass beyond the current practice. DOE is unaware of any data available 

regarding efficiency improvements related to further decreasing the thermal mass of wash 

tubs, and therefore did not consider this technology in its analysis.

 20 AHAM and AS/NZS standards are available online at http://webstore.ansi.org/.
104

a. Silver Ion Injection

Silver ion injection provides an alternative to the traditional method of sanitizing 

clothes using a hot water wash. Silver ion injection works by electrolyzing pure silver 

during the wash and rinse cycles, and releasing the ions into the wash basket to sanitize 

the basket and wash load. While this technology option appears to offer an efficiency 

improvement by eliminating the need for high wash water temperatures, the current DOE 

test procedure does not capture this efficiency gain. Additionally, DOE lacks data on the 

reduction in warm and hot water cycles associated with silver ion injection and is not 

aware of any test procedures that could be used to measure any energy savings resulting 

from the use of silver ion injection. Because of this, DOE was unable to consider silver 

ion injection for further analysis.

b. Tighter Tub Tolerance

The tighter tub tolerance technology option reduces the annular volume between 

the inner wash basket and the outer tub and hence reduces the total amount of water 

required for a fill cycle. As a result of discussions with manufacturers, DOE believes that 

this technology option has reached its limit for efficiency gains. Decreasing the space 

between the wash basket and the tub any further could create problems such as “suds 

lock,” whereby suds remain between the wash basket and tub; improper draining during 

the spin cycle; noise; and vibration, thereby negatively impacting product utility. 

Therefore, DOE did not consider this design option in its engineering analysis.
105

Table IV-4 shows the final list of design options that DOE retained for the 

engineering analysis.

Table IV-4 Retained Design Options for Residential Clothes Washers

1. Advanced agitation concepts for top-loading machines 

2. Automatic water fill control 

3. Direct-drive motor 

4. Horizontal-axis design

5. Horizontal-axis design with recirculation 

6. Hot water circulation loop

7. Improved fill control 

8. Improved water extraction to lower remaining moisture content 

9. Increased motor efficiency 

10. Low-standby-power electronic controls

11. Spray rinse or similar water-reducing rinse technology 

12. Thermostatically controlled mixing valves 

2. Baseline Efficiency Levels

In the framework document, DOE proposed baseline efficiency levels in active 

mode for top-loading standard, top-loading compact, and front-loading clothes washers. 

DOE did not consider front-loading compact models in the framework document. The 

Joint Petition, however, proposed standard levels for a front-loading compact product 

classes. In today’s final rule, DOE defined baseline efficiency levels and higher 

efficiency levels for each of the four product classes to conduct its engineering analyses. 

DOE defined a baseline efficiency level of 1.60 MEF/8.5 WF for the front-loading 

compact product class, as well as an updated baseline efficiency level of 0.77 MEF/14.0 

WF for the top-loading compact product class. Chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD 

provides further details on the development of these baseline efficiency levels.
106

In the framework document, DOE based the baseline level for top-loading 

standard units on the MEF specified by current Federal energy conservation standards

and the water factor (WF) requirement established by EISA 2007, which became 

effective for residential clothes washers manufactured on or after January 1, 2011. The 

top-loading compact MEF similarly was based on existing standards, with the WF scaled 

from the top-loading standard-size value by the ratio of MEFs for the two product 

classes. Because DOE understands that all commercially available front-loading clothes 

washers have efficiencies that meet or exceed the existing Federal standards and the 

former ENERGY STAR level of 1.72 MEF and 8.0 WF, effective prior to July 2009, 

DOE applied the former ENERGY STAR level to characterize the baseline unit 

efficiency for front-loading clothes washers.

AHAM, ALS, and BSH stated that they support the proposed baseline efficiency 

levels for top-loading standard (1.26 MEF/9.5 WF), top-loading compact (0.65 MEF/18.4 

WF), and front-loading standard (1.72 MEF/8.0 WF) product classes. (AHAM, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 72; AHAM, No. 24 at p. 2; ALS, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 7 at p. 73; ALS, No. 13 at p. 5; BSH, No. 11 at p. 4) Whirlpool 

commented that it supports the proposed baseline efficiency levels for the top-loading 

standard and front-loading standard product classes. (Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 5) The Joint 

Comment stated that DOE should determine the WF of baseline top-loading compact 

clothes washers through sampling rather than by scaling the standard-size baseline value. 

(Joint Comment, No. 15 at p. 5) For the direct final rule analysis, DOE defined the 

baseline efficiency levels for the standard product classes, both top-and front-loading, as 
107

they were defined in the framework document. DOE defined the baseline efficiency level

of 0.77 MEF/ 14.0 WF for the top-loading compact product class based on a survey of 

products currently available on the market. This baseline represents an improvement over 

the 0.65 MEF / 18.4 WF baseline defined in the framework document. 

Samsung stated that because it does not support separate classes based on washer 

axis, it recommends a single baseline efficiency level. (Samsung, No. 25 at p. 4) For the 

reasons discussed in III.A.2 DOE has retained separate product classes based on method 

of access and capacity, and thus continued to use separate baseline efficiency levels for 

each product class. 

BSH suggested including a front-loading compact product class, with a baseline 

efficiency level of 1.63 MEF/8.5 WF, based on data from the CEC residential clothes 

washer product database. (BSH, No. 11 at p. 4) The Joint Petition also included a frontloading compact product class. DOE defined a baseline efficiency level of 1.60 MEF/8.5 

WF for the front-loading compact product class, based on an extrapolation of the rated 

efficiencies of front-loading clothes washers with capacities nearing those that delineate 

the compact product class (i.e., 1.6 to 3.0 cubic feet). Chapter 5 of the direct final rule 

TSD provides further details of on the development of the baseline efficiency level for 

the front-loading compact product class.
108

AHAM, ALS, GE, and Samsung stated that no baseline efficiency levels need to 

be defined for top-loading semi-automatic and suds-saving product classes, since these 

product classes should be eliminated. (AHAM, No. 16 at p. 4; ALS, No. 13 at p. 5; GE, 

No. 20 at p. 1; Samsung, No. 25 at p. 4) Because DOE eliminated the top-loading semiautomatic and suds-saving product classes, DOE did not define corresponding baseline 

efficiency levels.

3. Higher Efficiency Levels

a. Efficiency Levels Proposed in Framework Document

In the framework document, DOE considered efficiency levels higher than 

baseline levels based on specifications prescribed by ENERGY STAR and CEE’s SuperEfficient Home-Appliances Initiative. The highest efficiency levels were defined by the 

maximum available technology that DOE could identify on the market. Where the 

increments between adjacent efficiency levels were large, DOE proposed to add an 

intermediate “gap-fill” level. Table IV-5 through Table IV-7 show the efficiency levels 

proposed in the framework document, based on MEF and WF.
109

Table IV-5 Efficiency Levels Proposed in the Framework Document for TopLoading Standard Residential Clothes Washer Framework Document

Level Efficiency Level Description

Efficiency Level

MEF

(ft3/kWh/cycle)

WF

(gal/cycle/ft3)

Baseline DOE Standard 1.26 9.50

1 Gap Fill 1.40 9.50

2 Former ENERGY STAR (pre-July 2009) 1.72 8.00

3 Former ENERGY STAR (pre-Jan 2011), 

also CEE Tier 1 1.80 7.50

4 Current ENERGY STAR (Jan 2011), also 

CEE Tier 2 2.00 6.00

5 Max Available 2.26 4.48

Table IV-6 Efficiency Levels Proposed in the Framework Document for TopLoading Compact Residential Clothes Washer Framework Document

Level Efficiency Level Description

Efficiency Level

MEF

(ft3/kWh/cycle)

WF

(gal/cycle/ft3)

Baseline DOE Standard 0.65 18.40

1 Max Available 0.78 13.90

Table IV-7 Efficiency Levels Proposed in the Framework Document for FrontLoading Residential Clothes Washer Framework Document

Level Efficiency Level Description

Efficiency Level

MEF

(ft3/kWh/cycle)

WF

(gal/cycle/ft3)

Baseline Former ENERGY STAR (pre-July 2009) 1.72 8.00

1 Former ENERGY STAR (pre-Jan 2011), 

also CEE Tier 1 1.80 7.50

2 Current ENERGY STAR (Jan 2011), 

also CEE Tier 2) 2.00 6.00

3 CEE Tier 3 2.20 4.50

4 Gap Fill 2.40 4.20

5 Max Available 2.89 3.36

DOE received a number of comments on the efficiency levels and provides 

responses to those comments and changes made to the efficiency levels for today’s direct 

final rule in the paragraphs that follow. The efficiency levels analyzed for today’s final 

rule are set forth in section IV.C.3.b (Table IV-8 through Table IV-11).
110

Whirlpool stated that it supports the efficiency levels proposed in the framework 

document. (Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 6) PG&E asked how DOE will prioritize MEF and 

WF when determining efficiency levels. As noted previously, efficiency levels were 

based primarily on levels defined by the ENERGY STAR and CEE voluntary programs. 

DOE subsequently added gap-fill levels based on data for available products, selecting 

combinations of MEF and WF that were achieved by a significant number of existing 

clothes washers and that also reasonably spanned the incremental changes in both metrics 

between the next-lowest and next-highest efficiency levels.

BSH proposed one additional efficiency level for a newly created front-loading 

compact product class above the baseline efficiency level it proposed—2.31 MEF/4.4 

WF. BSH identified this as the maximum available technology level. (BSH, No. 11 at p. 

6) The Consensus Agreement submitted by the Joint Petitioners includes efficiency 

standards for front-loading compact clothes washers of 1.72 MEF and 8.0 WF. As 

described previously, DOE defined a baseline efficiency level of 1.60 MEF and 8.5 WF 

for the front-loading compact product class. DOE defined one additional efficiency level 

at 1.72 MEF and 8.0 WF based on the standard level proposed in the Consensus 

Agreement.

ASAP, Earthjustice, and the Joint Comment stated that DOE should modify its 

proposed efficiency levels to harmonize them for standard-capacity top-loaders and frontloaders. In particular, those interested parties stated that DOE should set the highest 

efficiency level for the top-loading standard product class to CEE’s Tier 3 level. (ASAP,
111

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 87–88; Earthjustice, No. 17 at p. 7; Joint 

Comment, No. 15 at p. 5) The CEE Tier 3 level is 2.20 MEF/4.5 WF, which is slightly 

less stringent in MEF but slightly more stringent in WF than the maximum 

technologically feasible level for this product class identified in the framework document,

2.26 MEF/4.48 WF. Under EPCA, DOE is required to analyze the max-tech level for 

each product class. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)) In the framework document, DOE based its 

max-tech level for top-loading standard residential clothes washers on the maximum 

performance of products available on the market in the United States at that time. Since 

publication of the framework document, DOE became aware of a new max-tech unit on 

the market rated at 2.47 MEF and 3.6 WF. Therefore, in the direct final rule analysis, 

DOE created a new max-tech efficiency level corresponding to these efficiency ratings.

AHAM and ASAP questioned the gap-fill level identified as Efficiency Level 4 

for front-loading clothes washers. ASAP recommended that Efficiency Level 4 be 

specified as having a WF of 4.0 rather than the value of 4.2 proposed in the framework 

document. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 89; ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 7 at p. 89) DOE proposed Efficiency Level 4 for front-loading clothes 

washers—2.40 MEF/4.20 WF—based on performance metrics represented in a number 

of models in the CEC and ENERGY STAR databases. Therefore, DOE retained 

Efficiency Level 4 at a WF of 4.2.

In addition, DOE’s reverse engineering suggested that an additional gap-fill level 

between Efficiency Level 4 (gap-fill) and Efficiency Level 5 (max available) was 
112

warranted (see chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD for more information). Based on a 

review of available products, DOE defined a second gap-fill level at 2.60 MEF/3.8 WF.

DOE notes a small incremental span in WF between ASAP’s proposed Efficiency Level 

4 (4.0 WF) and DOE’s additional gap-fill level (3.8 WF). DOE found no meaningful 

differences in technology options required to achieve either water consumption level. 

Therefore, DOE retained a WF of 3.8 for the additional gap-fill level.

b. Efficiency Levels Used in Final Analysis

Table IV-8 through Table IV-11 show the efficiency levels used in the final 

analysis according to the test procedure in appendix J1 as well as the revised test 

procedure in appendix J2.
113

Table IV-8 Efficiency Levels for Top-Loading Standard Residential Clothes Washer 

Final Analysis

Level

Efficiency Level 

Description

Efficiency Level –

Appendix J1

Integrated Efficiency 

Level – Appendix J2

MEF

(ft3/kWh/

cycle)

WF

(gal/cycle/

ft3)

IMEF

(ft3/kWh/

cycle)

IWF

(gal/cycle/

ft3)

Baseline DOE Standard + 0 W 

Standby 1.26 9.5 0.84 9.9

1 Gap Fill + 0 W Standby 1.40 9.5 0.98 9.9

2

Former ENERGY STAR

(pre- 2009) + 0 W Standby

[Consensus Agreement 

2015] 1.72 8.0 1.29 8.4

3* Former ENERGY STAR

(pre-2011) + 2.3 W Standby 1.80 7.5 1.34 7.9

5

Former ENERGY STAR

(pre-2011) + 0.08 W 

Standby 1.80 7.5 1.37 7.9

6

Current ENERGY STAR

(Jan 2011) + 0.08 W 

Standby [Consensus 

Agreement 2018] 2.00 6.0 1.57 6.5

7

Max Available (at time of 

Framework Document)

+ 0.08 W Standby 2.26 4.5 1.83 5.0

8 Current Max Available

+ 0.08 W Standby 2.47 3.6 2.04 4.1

* DOE also analyzed design options that would meet an efficiency level 4, represented by “Former 

ENERGY STAR (pre-2011) + 1.7 W Standby”; however, this efficiency level has the same IMEF and IWF 

as the efficiency level represented by Former ENERGY STAR (pre-2011) + 2.3 W Standby and is therefore 

not included in the table.
114

Table IV-9 Efficiency Levels for Front-Loading Standard Residential Clothes 

Washer Final Analysis

Level

Efficiency Level 

Description

Efficiency Level –

Appendix J1

Integrated Efficiency 

Level – Appendix J2

MEF

(ft3/kWh/

cycle)

WF

(gal/cycle/

ft3)

IMEF

(ft3/kWh/

cycle)

IWF

(gal/cycle/

ft3)

Baseline Former ENERGY STAR

(pre- 2009) + 2.3 W Standby 1.72 8.0 1.37 8.3

1 Former ENERGY STAR

(pre- 2009) + 1.7 W Standby 1.72 8.0 1.39 8.3

2

Former ENERGY STAR

(pre- 2009) + 0.08 W 

Standby 1.72 8.0 1.41 8.3

3

Former ENERGY STAR

(pre-2011) + 0.08 W 

Standby 1.80 7.5 1.49 7.8

4

Current ENERGY STAR

(Jan 2011) + 0.08 W 

Standby 2.00 6.0 1.66 6.3

5

CEE Tier 3 + 0.08 W 

Standby [Consensus 

Agreement 2015] 2.20 4.5 1.84 4.7

6 Gap Fill + 0.08 W Standby 2.40 4.2 2.02 4.4

7 Gap Fill + 0.08 W Standby 2.60 3.8 2.20 4.0

8 Max Available + 0.08 W 

Standby 2.89 3.2 2.46 3.4

Table IV-10 Efficiency Levels for Top-Loading Compact Residential Clothes 

Washer Final Analysis

Level

Efficiency Level 

Description

Efficiency Level –

Appendix J1

Integrated Efficiency 

Level – Appendix J2

MEF

(ft3/kWh/

cycle)

WF

(gal/cycle/

ft3

)

IMEF

(ft3/kWh/

cycle)

IWF

(gal/cycle/

ft3

)

Baseline Baseline product on the 

market 0.77 14.0 0.59 14.4

1 Consensus Agreement

(2015 Proposed Standard) 1.26 14.0 0.86 14.4

2 Consensus Agreement

(2018 Proposed Standard) 1.81 11.6 1.15 12.0
115

Table IV-11 Efficiency Levels for Front-Loading Compact Residential Clothes 

Washer Final Analysis

Level

Efficiency Level 

Description

Efficiency Level –

Appendix J1

Integrated Efficiency 

Level – Appendix J2

MEF

(ft3/kWh/

cycle)

WF

(gal/cycle/

ft3)

IMEF

(ft3/kWh/

cycle)

IWF

(gal/cycle/

ft3)

Baseline DOE-estimated baseline 

level 1.60 8.5 1.03 8.8

1 Consensus Agreement

(2015 Proposed Standard) 1.72 8.0 1.13 8.3

As discussed in III.B, DOE recently published a revised test procedure, 

designated appendix J2, use of which will be required on January 1, 2015 absent adverse 

comment that results in withdrawal of today’s direct final rule pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

6295(p)(4). [INSERT FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION] The revised test procedure 

establishes an IMEF metric that incorporates energy use in standby and off mode, and an 

IWF metric that incorporates water usage from all cycles included in the energy test 

cycle.

DOE included the impacts of new provisions in the amended test procedure in 

developing the IMEF/IWF efficiency levels in today’s DFR. To perform this translation, 

DOE tested a wide range of both top-loading and front-loading clothes washers according 

to the test procedure at appendix J1 and the revised test procedure at appendix J2. Based 

on these tests, DOE developed correlation curves relating MEF to IMEF and WF to IWF. 

Chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD provides additional detail on the method DOE used 

to convert from MEF/WF levels to IMEF/IWF levels. 
116

Because the revised standards for residential clothes washers are required by

EPCA to incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)), 

DOE created efficiency levels for the top-loading standard and front-loading standard 

product classes that incorporate reduced standby power options into the MEF efficiency 

levels where DOE determined them to be most cost effective. In residential clothes 

washers, only units with electronic controls consume standby power; units with 

electromechanical controls consume no standby or off-mode power.

For the top-loading standard product class, standby power is likely to be added at 

Efficiency Level 3 in Table IV-8. This corresponds to the efficiency level at which 

electronic controls would be required. Because reduced standby power design options are 

more cost-effective than most other available design options, they are likely to be one of 

the first design options used by manufacturers to achieve higher IMEF ratings in units 

above Efficiency Level 3. DOE identified three distinct standby power design options, 

which are incorporated at Efficiency Level 3, Efficiency Level 4, and Efficiency Level 5.

Efficiency Levels 6-8 incorporate the standby design option in Efficiency Level 5, which 

has the lowest energy use.

For the front-loading standard product class, DOE is unaware of any units that do 

not use electronic controls. Therefore, standby power is experienced at all efficiency 

levels. As with top-loading clothes washers, reduced standby power design options are 

more cost-effective than most other available design options, and they are likely to be one 

of the first design options used by manufacturers to achieve higher IMEF ratings in units 
117

above the baseline level. Therefore, as shown in Table IV-9, DOE incorporated the three 

distinct standby power design options at the Baseline Level, Efficiency Level 1, and 

Efficiency Level 2. Efficiency Levels 3-8 incorporate the standby design option in 

Efficiency Level 2, which has the lowest energy use. 

Chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD provides detailed descriptions of the design 

options associated with each efficiency level, including details of the active mode and 

standby mode efficiency levels for each product class.

For the front-loading standard product class, DOE introduced a second gap fill 

level in the final analysis at 2.6 MEF/3.8 WF (EL 7). During the reverse-engineering 

analysis, DOE observed specific technology options employed at this efficiency level, 

and thus determined that an additional gap fill at this level is appropriate.

For the top-loading compact product class, DOE defined the baseline efficiency 

level based on a survey of units currently available on the market, as described previously 

in section IV.C.2. Efficiency Level 1 and Efficiency Level 2 represent the standard levels 

proposed in the Consensus Agreement for 2015 and 2018, respectively. Chapter 5 of the 

direct final rule TSD provides detailed descriptions of the design options manufacturers 

are likely to use to achieve the higher efficiency levels.

For the front-loading compact product class, DOE defined the baseline efficiency 

level based on an extrapolation of the rated efficiencies of front-loading clothes washers
118

with capacities nearing those that delineate the compact product class (i.e., 1.6 to 3.0 

cubic feet), as described in section IV.C.2. Efficiency Level 1 represents the 2015 

standard level proposed in the Consensus Agreement. 

Chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD provides further details of the analysis 

performed on the efficiency levels for this product class. As discussed in more detail in 

chapter 5, manufacturers indicated during manufacturer interviews that the efficiency 

levels chosen by DOE would not result in an increased cycle time for units within any of 

the product classes established in today’s direct final rule, an assertion that is supported 

by DOE analysis of test data and published product literature. DOE seeks comment on 

this issue in section II.B.3.

4. Maximum Technologically Feasible Efficiency Levels

In the framework document, DOE based its max-tech level for top-loading 

standard and front-loading standard residential clothes washers on the maximum 

performance of products currently on the market in the United States, based on its review 

of various product databases. DOE considered several models in each product class to 

determine max-tech values that best represent optimal performance of IMEF and IWF for 

clothes washers on the market. DOE sought comment on whether the “maximum 

available” efficiency levels, shown in Table IV-12, represented max-tech efficiency. 

Comment [A7]: Change recommended by OIRA.
119

Table IV-12 Proposed Maximum Technologically Feasible Efficiency Levels 

Proposed in the Framework Document for Residential Clothes Washers

Product Class

Max-Tech Levels

MEF WF

1. Top-loading, Compact 

(less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) 0.78 13.90

2. Top-loading, Standard 2.26 4.48

3. Front-loading 2.89 3.36

The American Water Works Association (AWWA), the California Utilities, the 

Joint Comment, and PG&E objected to the use of “maximum available” efficiency levels 

as a substitute for max-tech. AWWA, the California Utilities, and the Joint Comment 

stated that DOE must survey available technologies to determine the maximum 

achievable levels. (AWWA, No. 14 at p. 1; California Utilities, No. 19 at p. 5; Joint 

Comment, No. 15 at p. 5; PG&E, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 90) Whirlpool 

stated that it believes that it manufactures the model that is the basis for the maximum 

available level for top-loading clothes washers. Whirlpool stated that this maximum 

available level is at or near the max-tech limit. Even so, Whirlpool stated that the 

platform is relatively costly (with a suggested retail price of $1099–$1299), so that it 

would not be an economically justified standard level. ALS commented that the max-tech 

efficiency level should not represent a niche product, a product with low-end capacity, or 

some proprietary design. SCE asked whether an efficiency-level approach would limit 

how DOE develops its max-tech levels. (ALS, No. 13 at p. 9; Whirlpool, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 7 at p. 91, Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 6; SCE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

7 at p. 90)
120

Under EPCA, DOE is required to consider the maximum technologically feasible 

level. DOE determines max-tech levels based on technologies that are either 

commercially available or have been demonstrated as working prototypes. If the maxtech design meets DOE’s screening criteria, DOE considers the design in further analysis. 

DOE also considers consumer utility and availability of features, which may be met by a 

niche product, as required by EPCA.

As described previously, DOE became aware of a new top-loading standard 

clothes washer with a higher MEF and lower WF than the max-tech level considered in 

the framework document. This new max-tech efficiency level was added for the direct 

final rule analysis. For front-loading standard clothes washers, DOE did not identify any 

other designs or combinations of technologies beyond the “maximum available” that 

would lead to a different max-tech level without requiring proprietary designs. For toploading compact clothes washers, DOE used the 2018 standard level proposed in the 

Consensus Agreement as the max-tech level, as described previously. For front-loading 

compact clothes washers, DOE used the 2015 standard level proposed in the Consensus 

Agreement as the max-tech level.

Finally, DOE has observed that the max-tech units on the market use a 

combination of significantly reduced water volumes, reduced water temperatures, 

extended cycle times, and extremely high spin speeds. (See chapter 5 of the direct final 

rule TSD). DOE is not aware of any additional design options that could be used to 
121

increase the efficiency beyond the max-tech levels without causing potential negative 

effects on consumer utility. Nor is DOE aware of any working prototype clothes washers 

that exceed the efficiency levels of the max-tech units on the market in the United States. 

Therefore, DOE believes the “max available” efficiency levels for residential clothes 

washers correspond to the maximum technologically feasible efficiency levels. 

Accordingly, DOE does not believe that using an efficiency-level approach would limit 

how it develops its max-tech levels.

Table IV-13 shows the max-tech levels used for the final analysis.

Table IV-13 Maximum Technologically Feasible Efficiency Levels for Residential 

Clothes Washers Final Analysis

Product Class

Max Tech Levels –

Appendix J2

IMEF IWF

Top-loading, Standard 2.04 4.1

Front-loading, Standard 2.46 3.4

Top-loading, Compact 1.15 12.0

Front-loading, Compact 1.13 8.3

5. Proprietary Designs

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

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

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

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

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

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

impacts on competition that would likely result.
122

AHAM, GE, and Whirlpool stated that they are not aware of any proprietary 

designs or technologies that would impact this rulemaking. (AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 7 at p. 93; AHAM, No. 16 at p. 5; GE, No. 20 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 22

at p. 7) Earthjustice commented that DOE must evaluate the maximum technologically 

feasible standards for clothes washers, including those that use proprietary technology. 

According to Earthjustice, DOE’s unqualified rejection of efficiency levels incorporating 

proprietary technologies repeats the errors that DOE made over 25 years ago in refusing 

to analyze efficiency levels incorporating technologies available only in prototypes. In 

that rulemaking, Earthjustice stated that the D.C. Circuit wrote that DOE “conclusively 

assume[d] that manufacturers cannot incorporate any prototypes for any product type or 

class into all appliances of that type or class [by the effective date of the standard].” 

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1985). 

Earthjustice believes that DOE’s approach in the current clothes washer rulemaking 

would similarly exclude a technology without any analysis of technological feasibility or 

economic justification. Earthjustice also stated that Congress clearly intended for DOE to 

carefully consider the impact of adopting standards that depend on the use of proprietary 

technologies, as it required in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) that DOE consider the 

impact on competition in weighing the economic justification for a given standard level. 

Earthjustice concluded that DOE cannot lawfully exclude proprietary technologies from 

its analysis without a justification that complies with EPCA. (Earthjustice, No. 17 at pp. 

9–10)
123

DOE considers in its analysis technologies that have been incorporated into 

working prototypes, consistent with the D.C. Circuit decision discussed above. DOE also 

considers proprietary technologies if the efficiency levels that can be met using those 

technologies can also be met using other, non-proprietary technologies. DOE does not 

consider proprietary technologies when such technologies provide the only means to 

reach a given efficiency level because of the potential market barriers and impacts on 

competition.

6. Reverse Engineering

ASAP and Samsung stated that they support DOE’s reverse engineering. (ASAP, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 74; Samsung, No. 25 at p. 4) The California 

Utilities requested that DOE explore how to make pertinent manufacturer cost data 

available to the public while protecting manufacturer confidentiality. (California Utilities, 

No. 19 at p. 5) To supplement and validate the AHAM data submittals, DOE conducted 

interviews with manufacturers. Cost information supplied to DOE by the manufacturers 

was aggregated or otherwise incorporated into the analysis to protect confidentiality. Data 

developed by DOE during the teardowns and subsequent analysis are detailed in chapter 

5 of the direct final rule TSD.

AHAM, ALS, BSH, and Whirlpool suggested that DOE complete its reverseengineering analysis on the following four product types:

• Conventional agitator top-loading;

• High efficiency agitator top-loading;
124

• High efficiency non-agitator top-loading; and

• Standard-size front-loading.

AHAM, GE, and Whirlpool also recommended that DOE reverse-engineer 

compact top-loading clothes washers. BSH recommended adding both compact toploading and compact front-loading clothes washers. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 7 at p. 81; AHAM, No. 16 at p. 5; ALS, No. 13 at p. 9; BSH, No. 11 at p. 4; GE, No. 

20 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 6) DOE’s test sample for its reverse engineering 

analysis included representative residential clothes washers from all of these categories. 

DOE modeled the likely construction of a compact front-loading clothes washer by 

extrapolating from front-loading clothes washers with capacities nearing those 

delineating the compact product class (i.e., between 1.6 and 3.0 cubic feet in capacity).

ASAP stated that, when DOE evaluates the characteristics of baseline models, no 

extraneous features and amenities should be included that do not contribute to energy and 

water performance. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 74) DOE’s cost 

models disaggregate total manufacturing costs by sub-assemblies and individual 

components, thereby allowing DOE to identify only those specific design options 

contributing to incremental efficiency improvements.

Based on product teardowns and cost modeling, DOE developed overall costefficiency relationships for all four residential clothes washer product classes. Table 

IV-14 through Table IV-17 show DOE’s estimates of incremental manufacturing cost for 
125

improvement of clothes washer efficiency above the baseline. As mentioned previously 

in section IV.C.3.b, DOE applied the correlation curves it developed to translate MEF 

into IMEF and WF into IWF. Chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD provides details on 

DOE’s engineering analysis, including the development of the cost-efficiency curves and 

correlation curves. 

Table IV-14 Cost-Efficiency Relationship for Top-Loading Standard Residential 

Clothes Washers

Efficiency 

Level

Efficiency Level –

Appendix J1

Integrated Efficiency Level –

Appendix J2

Incremental 

Manufacturing 

Cost

(2010$)

MEF

(ft3/kWh/cycle)

WF

(gal/cycle/ft3)

IMEF

(ft3/kWh/cycle)

IWF

(gal/cycle/ft3)

Baseline 1.26 9.5 0.84 9.9 $0.00

EL 1 1.40 9.5 0.98 9.9 $3.11

EL 2 1.72 8.0 1.29 8.4 $8.44

EL 3* 1.80 7.5 1.34 7.9 $13.06

EL 5 1.80 7.5 1.37 7.9 $14.24

EL 6 2.00 6.0 1.57 6.5 $25.29

EL 7 2.26 4.5 1.83 5.0 $60.65

EL 8 2.47 3.6 2.04 4.1 $69.79

* EL4 is not included in the table because it has the same IMEF and IWF as EL 3. The incremental 

manufacturing cost for EL 4 is $16.98.

Table IV-15 Cost-Efficiency Relationship for Front-Loading Standard Residential 

Clothes Washers

Efficiency 

Level

Efficiency Level –

Appendix J1

Integrated Efficiency Level –

Appendix J2 Incremental 

Manufacturing 

Cost

(2010$)

MEF

(ft3/kWh/cycle)

WF

(gal/cycle/ft3)

IMEF

(ft3/kWh/cycle)

IWF

(gal/cycle/ft3)

Baseline 1.72 8.0 1.37 8.3 $0.00

EL 1 1.72 8.0 1.39 8.3 $3.92

EL 2 1.72 8.0 1.41 8.3 $1.18

EL 3 1.80 7.5 1.49 7.8 $3.18

EL 4 2.00 6.0 1.66 6.3 $6.20

EL 5 2.20 4.5 1.84 4.7 $17.25

EL 6 2.40 4.2 2.02 4.4 $40.36

EL 7 2.60 3.8 2.20 4.0 $53.88

EL 8 2.89 3.2 2.46 3.4 $73.51
126

Table IV-16 Cost-Efficiency Relationship for Top-Loading Compact Residential 

Clothes Washers

Efficiency 

Level

Efficiency Level –

Appendix J1

Integrated Efficiency Level –

Appendix J2 Incremental 

Manufacturing 

Cost

(2010$)

MEF

(ft3

/kWh/cycle)

WF

(gal/cycle/ft3)

IMEF

(ft3/kWh/cycle)

IWF

(gal/cycle/ft3)

Baseline 0.77 14.0 0.59 14.4 $0.00

EL 1 1.26 14.0 0.86 14.4 $5.00

EL 2 1.81 11.6 1.15 12.0 $45.00

Table IV-17 Cost-Efficiency Relationship for Front-Loading Compact Residential 

Clothes Washers

Efficiency 

Level

Efficiency Level –

Appendix J1

Integrated Efficiency Level –

Appendix J2 Incremental 

Manufacturing 

Cost

(2010$)

MEF

(ft3

/kWh/cycle)

WF

(gal/cycle/ft3)

IMEF

(ft3/kWh/cycle)

IWF

(gal/cycle/ft3)

Baseline 1.60 8.5 1.03 8.8 $0.00

EL 1 1.72 8.0 1.13 8.3 $3.00

D.

The markups analysis develops appropriate markups in the distribution chain to 

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

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

the product to cover business costs and profit margin. For clothes washers, the main 

parties in the distribution chain are manufacturers and retailers. 

Markups Analysis

DOE developed an average manufacturer markup by examining the annual 

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

manufacturers primarily engaged in appliance manufacturing and whose combined 

product range includes residential clothes washers. 
127

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

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

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

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

economic data from the U.S. Census Bureau to estimate average baseline and incremental 

markups.21

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

markups for residential clothes washers.

E.

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

clothes washers in the field, 

Energy and Water Use Analysis

i.e., as they are actually used by consumers. The energy and 

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

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

that could result from DOE’s adoption of amended standards. In contrast to the DOE test 

procedure, which provides standardized results that can serve as the basis for comparing 

the performance of different appliances used under the same conditions, the energy and 

water use analysis seeks to capture the range of operating conditions for clothes washers 

in U.S. homes.

To determine the field energy and water use of products that would meet possible 

amended standard levels, DOE used data from the Energy Information Administration 

 21 U.S. Census, 2002 Business Expenditure Survey (BES), Electronics and Appliance Stores sectors
128

(EIA)’s 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), which was the most 

recent such survey available at the time of DOE’s analysis.22 RECS is a national sample 

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

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

of the housing units and occupants. RECS provides sufficient information to establish the 

type (product class) of clothes washer used in each household. As a result, DOE was able 

to develop household samples for each of the considered product classes. RECS is the 

only source that provides a nationally representative household sample that includes 

estimates of usage by clothes washers.

For each sample household, DOE estimated the field-based annual energy and 

water use of front- and top-loading standard-capacity clothes washers by multiplying the 

annual number of clothes washer cycles for each household by the per-cycle energy and 

water use values established by the engineering analysis (using the DOE test procedure) 

for each considered efficiency level. Per-cycle clothes washer energy use is calculated in 

the test procedure as the sum of per-cycle machine energy use of the washer (including 

the energy used to heat water and remove moisture from clothing, and standby and offmode energy use. 

During the framework document public meeting, Whirlpool stated that although 

RECS has its limitations, there is no alternative for characterizing the annual energy use 

of clothes washers. (Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 7) AHAM, ALS, and GE expressed support 

for DOE's plan to use RECS as a primary source of information for estimating the energy 

 22 For information on RECS, see www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/.
129

consumption of clothes washers. (AHAM, No. 16 at p. 6; ALS, No. 13 at p. 10; GE, No. 

20 at p. 1) 

A more detailed description of DOE’s energy and water use analysis for clothes 

washers is contained in chapter 7 of the direct final rule TSD.

1. Clothes Washer Usage

Commenting on the framework document, AWE said that average wash cycles 

per year are decreasing. (AWE, No. 12 at p. 3) AHAM stated that DOE should reduce the 

assumed average number of loads to reflect current data. (AHAM, No. 7 at p. 115) The 

Joint Comment said that DOE must update the average number of use cycles based on 

current data. (Joint Comment, No. 15 at p. 5)

Data collected from the 2005 RECS indicate that the frequency of clothes washer 

use has decreased compared to the assumptions incorporated in DOE’s previous test 

procedure. The average usage value obtained from RECS is 295 cycles per year.

23 Data 

collected by DOE from the AHAM Fact Book 2005, American Housing Survey (AHS) 

2007, and 2006 data provided by Proctor and Gamble24

 23 In the TP final rule, DOE changed the representative number of wash cycles per year from 392 to 295 

based on the 2005 RECS data. (INSERT FR citation/date)

confirmed the data on average 

wash cycles from RECS. More recent nationally-representative data were not available. It 

is important to note that DOE uses the actual usage for each household sampled in its 

energy use analysis, not the average usage.

24 Procter and Gamble. Study #US064358: Drying Habits. Unpublished PowerPoint Deck. Procured 

through personal communication with author Cindy Garner, 7/21/2009.
130

AWE said that DOE should consider that average washer capacity is increasing. 

(AWE, No. 12 at p. 3) The new DOE test procedure, which was used for estimating per 

cycle clothes washer energy use, considers recent data on the clothes load in calculating 

energy use to remove moisture from clothing. The load is a weighted average that 

depends on load usage factors and the capacity of the clothes washer.

2. Rebound Effect

In calculating energy consumption of residential clothes washers, DOE 

considered whether it would be appropriate to include a rebound effect (also called a 

take-back effect), which represents the increased energy consumption that can result from 

increases in energy efficiency and the associated reduction in operating costs. The 

rebound effect assumes that consumers will increase their overall annual usage of a more 

efficient product, thereby decreasing their overall annual savings. Samsung, AHAM, and 

GE said that they are unaware of a rebound effect for residential clothes washers. 

(Samsung, No. 25 at p. 5; AHAM, No. 16 at p. 6; GE, No. 20 at p. 1) Whirlpool stated 

that it is unaware of any data indicating that consumers would purchase a larger clothes 

washer than their needs dictated. (Whirlpool, No. 22 at p.7)

A recent review of empirical estimates of the direct rebound effect25

 25 S. Sorrell, J. Dimitropoulos, and M. Sommerville, Empirical estimates of the direct rebound effect: a 

review, Energy Policy 37 (2009), pp. 1356–71. 

found one 

study of direct rebound effects for clothes washing. This study found that the demand for 
131

clean clothes (measured as weight of clothes) increased by 5.6% after consumers 

received new (more efficient) washers.26 This rebound effect results in part from savings 

in water and detergent costs. If the estimate was based solely on the savings in the energy 

costs of the service, the estimated effect would be smaller. DOE does not believe that this 

study supports include a rebound effect in today’s direct final rule, however, because the 

study used field data from participants who received high-efficiency clothes washers free 

of charge and was short-term in nature -- roughly 3 months of use with the new washers. 

These factors could contribute to the increase in clothes washed. Lastly, the field trial was 

in a very small town and included 103 participants, which may not be representative of 

the U.S. household population.

Based on the above considerations and the comments by manufacturers, DOE did 

not include a direct rebound effect in its analysis of residential clothes washer energy and 

water use. However, DOE did perform a sensitivity analysis assuming a 5-percent 

rebound effect.

F.

DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts on 

individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for clothes washers. The 

LCC is the total consumer expense over the life of a product, consisting of purchase and 

installation costs plus operating costs (expenses for energy use, maintenance, and repair). 

To compute the operating costs, DOE discounts future operating costs to the time of 

Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

 26 L.W. Davis, Durable Goods and Residential Demand for Energy and Water: Evidence from a Field Trial, 

Department of Economics, University of Michigan (2007).
132

purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the product. The PBP is the estimated 

amount of time (in years) it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost 

(including installation) of a more efficient product through lower operating costs. DOE 

calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost (normally higher) due to a 

more stringent standard by the change in average annual operating cost (normally lower) 

that results from the standard.

For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the PBP and the change in LCC 

relative to an estimate of the base-case appliance efficiency levels. The base-case 

estimate reflects the market in the absence of new or amended energy conservation 

standards, including the market for products that exceed the current energy conservation 

standards.

For each considered efficiency level in each product class, DOE calculated the 

LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of housing units. For the analysis for 

today’s rule, DOE developed household samples from the 2005 RECS. For each sample 

household, DOE determined the energy consumption for the clothes washer and the 

appropriate electricity price. By developing a representative sample of households, the 

analysis captured the variability in energy consumption and energy prices associated with 

the use of residential clothes washers.

Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost of the product—

which includes manufacturer costs, manufacturer markups, retailer and distributor 
133

markups, and sales taxes—and installation costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating 

expenses include annual energy consumption, energy and water prices and price 

projections, repair and maintenance costs, product lifetimes, discount rates, and the year 

that compliance with standards is required. DOE created distributions of values for 

product lifetime, discount rates, and sales taxes, with probabilities attached to each value, 

to account for their uncertainty and variability. 

The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC and PBP, which incorporates 

Crystal Ball (a commercially available software program), relies on a Monte Carlo 

simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability into the analysis. The Monte Carlo 

simulations randomly sample input values from the probability distributions and clothes 

washer user samples. The model calculated the LCC and PBP for products at each 

efficiency level for 10,000 housing units per simulation run. 

Several interested parties supported DOE’s use of Monte Carlo simulation to 

account for variability and uncertainty in inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis. (AHAM, 

No. 16 at p. 6; ALS, No. 13 at p. 10; GE, No. 20 at p. 1; Samsung, No. 25 at p. 5; 

Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 8)

Table IV-18 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive inputs to the 

LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow provide further discussion. 

Details of the spreadsheet model, and of all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are 

contained in chapter 8 and its appendices of the direct final rule TSD.
134
135

Table IV-18 Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis*

Inputs Method

Product Cost Derived by multiplying manufacturer 

cost by manufacturer and retailer 

markups and sales tax, as appropriate.

Used historical data to derive a price 

scaling index to forecast product costs.

Installation Costs Assumed no change with efficiency 

level.

Annual Energy Use Used DOE test procedure with data on 

cycles from the 2005 RECS, market data 

on RMC, and load weights from test 

procedure.

Used IMEF and IWF to account for selfcleaning, steam cleaning and non-active 

mode power usage.

Energy and Water 

Prices

Electricity: Based on EIA’s Form 861 

data for 2008. 

Variability: Regional energy prices 

determined for 13 regions. 

Water: Based on 2008 AWWA/Raftelis 

Survey.

Variability: By census region.

Energy and Water 

Price Trends

Energy: Forecasted using Annual Energy 

Outlook 2010 (AEO2010)

Water: Forecasted using BLS historic 

water price index information.

price 

forecasts.

Repair and 

Maintenance Costs

Assumed no change with efficiency 

level.

Product Lifetime Estimated using survey results from 

RECS (1990, 1993, 1997, 2001, 2005) 

and the U.S. Census American Housing 

Survey (2005, 2007), along with historic 

data on appliance shipments.

Variability: Characterized using Weibull 

probability distributions.

Discount Rates Approach involves identifying all 

possible debt or asset classes that might 

be used to purchase the considered 

appliances, or might be affected 

indirectly. Primary data source was the 

Federal Reserve Board’s SCF** for 

1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004 and 

2007. 

Compliance Date 2015.

* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or 

in chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD.

** Survey of Consumer Finances.
136

1. Product Cost

To calculate consumer product costs, DOE multiplied the manufacturer selling 

prices developed in the engineering analysis by the supply-chain markups described 

above (along with sales taxes). DOE used different markups for baseline products and 

higher-efficiency products, because DOE applies an incremental markup to the increase 

in MSP associated with higher-efficiency products. ALS supported DOE's approach, as it 

was employed for estimating future retail prices in other appliance rulemakings. (ALS, 

No. 13 at p. 10)

Examination of historical price data for a number of appliances that have been 

subject to energy conservation standards indicates that an assumption of constant real 

prices and costs may overestimate long-term trends in appliance prices. Economic 

literature and historical data suggest that the real costs of these products may in fact trend 

downward over time according to “learning” or “experience” curves. On February 22, 

2011, DOE published a Notice of Data Availability (NODA, 76 FR 9696) stating that 

DOE may consider improving regulatory analysis by addressing equipment price trends. 

In the NODA, DOE proposed that when sufficiently long-term data are available on the 

cost or price trends for a given product, it would analyze the available data to forecast 

future trends. 

Many commenters were supportive of DOE moving from an assumption-based 

equipment price trend forecasting method to a data-driven methodology for forecasting 

price trends. Other commenters were skeptical that DOE could accurately forecast price 
137

trends given the many variables and factors that can complicate both the estimation and 

the interpretation of the numerical price trend results and the relationship between price 

and cost. DOE evaluated these concerns and determined that retaining the assumptionbased approach of a constant real price trend was not consistent with the historical data 

available for residential clothes washers.

In its analysis for today’s notice, DOE performed an exponential fit on historical 

Producer Price Index (PPI) data for household laundry equipment from the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics’ (BLS). (PPI data specific to residential clothes washers were not 

available.) The PPI data used cover the period 1991–2010. An inflation-adjusted price 

index for household laundry equipment was calculated by dividing the PPI series by the 

GDP price deflator for the same years. DOE forecast a price factor index using this 

exponential model.27 The value for 2015 used in the LCC and PBP analysis is 0.882. 

Thus, product prices forecast for the LCC and PBP analysis are equal to 0.882 times the 

2010 values for each efficiency level in each product class. DOE’s forecast of product 

prices for clothes washers is described in further detail in appendix 8-E of the direct final 

rule TSD.28

 27 For the NIA, DOE also considered several alternative price trends consistent with the available data as 

sensitivity cases (see section IV.G.4).

28 DOE recognizes that its price trend forecasting methods are likely to be modified as more data and 

information becomes available to enhance the statistical certainty of the trend estimate and the 

completeness of the model. Additional data should enable an improved evaluation of the potential impacts 

of more of the factors that can influence product price trends over time.
138

2. Installation Cost 

Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous materials and 

parts needed to install the product. DOE found no evidence that installation costs would 

be impacted with increased efficiency levels, so it did not include installation costs in its

analysis.

3. Annual Energy Consumption

For each sampled household, DOE determined the energy consumption for a 

clothes washer at different efficiency levels using the approach described above in 

section IV.E.

4. Energy Prices

DOE derived average annual energy prices for 13 geographic areas consisting of 

the nine U.S. Census divisions, with four large states (New York, Florida, Texas, and 

California) treated separately. For Census divisions containing one of those large states, 

DOE calculated the regional average excluding the data for the large state. 

DOE calculated average residential electricity prices for each of the 13 

geographic areas using data from EIA’s Form EIA-861 database (based on “Annual 

Electric Power Industry Report”).29

 29 Available at: 

DOE calculated an average annual regional 

residential price by: (1) estimating an average residential price for each utility (by 

dividing the residential revenues by residential sales); and (2) weighting each utility by 

www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia861.html
139

the number of residential consumers it served in that region. The final rule analysis used 

the data for 2008, the most recent data available. 

The Joint Comment stated that DOE should consider using regionally based, toptier residential electricity prices rather than average rates because energy savings would 

occur at the highest rate the consumer might pay. The California Utilities stated that 

DOE’s analysis should capture the value of energy over time. They pointed to 

California’s use of time-dependent valuation of savings (TDV), which places a high 

value on energy savings that occur during high cost times of the day and year. (California 

Utilities, No. 19 at p. 6) ALS supported DOE's approach because has been employed for 

estimating current and forecasted energy prices in other appliance rulemakings. (ALS, 

No. 13 at p. 10)

DOE did not use marginal (i.e., top-tier) electricity prices in the current analysis, 

because for an appliance such as a residential clothes washer, there is little difference 

between marginal and average electricity prices. The effect of ascending block rates, used 

by many utilities, is offset by two other features of rate structures: (1) residential 

consumers tend to pay relatively high fixed charges, which raises the average price 

relative to the marginal energy price; and (2) seasonal rates also are common, with 

summer rates typically higher, and winter rates lower, than the average (this may be 

reversed in winter-peaking regions). Because clothes washer energy use is not seasonal, 

over the year the rate differences average out. DOE’s analysis of the Edison Electric 

Institute’s Typical Bills and Average Rates Reports for summer and winter 2008 
140

confirms that, when averaged over the year and over a wide consumer base, as is 

appropriate for clothes washers, marginal and average rates are approximately equal. 

5. Energy Price Projections

To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the average regional 

energy prices discussed in section IV. F.4 by the forecasts of annual average residential 

energy price changes in the Reference case from AEO2010, which has an end year of 

2035.30 To estimate price trends after 2035, DOE usedapplied the average annual rate of 

change in pricesthe AEO2010 forecasts from 2020 to 2035. The rates used were 1.14 

percent for electricity price and 1.16 percent for natural gas price.

6. Water and Wastewater Prices

For today’s direct final rule, DOE obtained data on water and wastewater prices 

for 2010 from the Water and Wastewater Rate Survey conducted by Raftelis Financial 

Consultants and the water utility association, AWWA. The survey, which analyzes each 

industry separately, covers approximately 308 water utilities and 228 wastewater utilities. 

The water survey includes, for each utility, the cost to consumers of purchasing a given 

volume of water or treating a given volume of wastewater. The data provide a division of 

the total consumer cost into fixed and volumetric charges. DOE’s calculations use only 

the volumetric charge to calculate water and wastewater prices, because only this charge 

is affected by a change in water use. Average water and wastewater prices were estimated 

for each of four census regions. Each RECS household was assigned a water and 

wastewater price depending on its census region location. 

 30 U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2010. Washington, DC. April 2010.

Comment [A8]: Change recommended by OIRA.
141

Commenting on the framework document, AWWA stated that the Water and 

Wastewater Survey conducted by Raftelis and AWWA is the best available national 

survey of water and wastewater rates. AWWA also noted additional steps that DOE can 

take to make its incorporation of available water and sewer rates more robust. These

include considering base charges that are embedded in the cost of customer service; 

capturing differences in rate structures at the community level; and accounting for 

variability in rate structures due to asset management systems at some utilities. (AWWA, 

No. 14 at p. 3) 

In response, DOE believes, as stated above, that using only the volumetric charge 

to calculate water and wastewater prices is appropriate, because only this charge is 

affected by a change in water use. DOE was not able to capture differences and 

variability in rate structures to the degree suggested by AWWA because the Water and 

Wastewater Rate Survey does not have a large enough number of utilities to allow DOE 

to develop prices at a level more detailed than the Census region.

AWWA stated that while it is difficult to fully capture the true future cost of 

water in a national analysis, reliance on a simple extrapolation of current rate structures 

alone is inadequate. It suggested that DOE account for the need of water and wastewater 

systems to increase rates in the next 30 to 50 years as systems age. (AWWA, No. 14 at p. 

2-3) DOE is not aware of any national-level long-term forecasts of water and wastewater 

prices. To forecast water and wastewater price trends, DOE used a price index for water 
142

and sewerage maintenance from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and then adjusted 

the index for inflation using the Consumer Price Index. DOE developed a price trend 

based on 45 years of BLS data from 1975 to 2010.

DOE also used price information for households that use well water and a septic 

tank from the National Ground Water Association, as well as national cost data on 

residential septic systems from the National Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association 

(NOWRA).

Chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD provides more detail about DOE’s approach 

to developing water and wastewater prices.

7. Maintenance and Repair Costs

Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing components that have 

failed in an appliance; maintenance costs are associated with maintaining the operation of

the product. Typically, small incremental increases in product efficiency produce no, or 

only minor, changes in repair and maintenance costs compared to baseline efficiency 

products. In its preliminary analysis, DOE did not have information suggesting that those 

costs would change with higher efficiency levels. 

AHAM and GE stated that information obtained from clothes washer 

manufacturers indicates that where higher efficiencies are provided via a different 

configuration (horizontal axis compared to vertical axis), the costs of maintenance and 
143

repair increase. (AHAM, No. 16 at p. 7; GE, No. 20 at p. 1) BSH stated that because 

front-loading units often are installed stacked with the dryer on top of the washer or built 

into cabinetry, a greater effort is required to access the appliances to perform service. 

(BSH, No. 11 at p. 6) Miele stated that there can be a higher repair cost for apartmentsize front-loaders because they must be removed from the stacked installation to do the 

repair. (Miele, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 130) ALS suggested that high 

efficiency technologies may have greater frequency of maintenance. (ALS, No. 13 at p. 

10) Whirlpool said that maintenance, repair, and installation costs could be twice current 

levels if exotic new technologies are required to meet new efficiency levels. (Whirlpool, 

No. 22 at p. 8) ASAP said that claims of significantly higher repair costs for front-loading 

machines must be evaluated critically and that recent data for front-loaders should be 

used. (ASAP, No. 14 at p. 6) Samsung agreed with the view that there is negligible 

difference in maintenance, repair, and installation costs for baseline and high efficiency 

units. (Samsung, No. 25 at p. 6) 

DOE does not have any data indicating increases in maintenance and repair costs 

associated with the efficiency levels within each of the product classes considered in its 

analysis. (Differences in such costs between top- and front-loading washers are not 

relevant to the LCC analysis.) Therefore, DOE did not assume that more efficient 

washers in each product class would have greater repair or maintenance costs.
144

8. Product Lifetime

Because the lifetime of appliances varies depending on utilization and other 

factors, DOE develops a distribution of lifetimes from which specific values are assigned 

to the appliances in the samples. In the previous rulemaking for clothes washers, DOE 

estimated an average product lifetime of 14.1 years. 66 FR 3314.

Commenting on the framework document, AHAM and GE stated that DOE’s

estimate of 14 years overstates the average useful life of horizontal-axis products. They 

stated that, based on AHAM data, the average useful life of top-loading configurations is 

14 years, while that of front-loading configurations is 11 years. (AHAM, No. 16 at p. 7; 

GE, No. 20 at p. 1) Samsung supported using DOE’s estimated useful life of 14.1 years. 

(Samsung, No. 25 at p. 6) Whirlpool stated that the September 2008 issue of Appliance

magazine cites an average life of 11 years, which is consistent with their experience. 

(Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 8) ALS supported using an average product lifetime of 14 years, 

but for only the traditional top-loading models. They said that front-loading and new high 

efficiency top-loading designs may have shorter lifetimes because of greater design 

complexity, electronic components that are more expensive to repair, complaints about 

mold in door boot/seals, and issues concerning out-of-balance spin. (ALS, No. 13 at p. 

11) The Joint Comment said that claims of substantially shorter product lifetimes for 

front-loaders must be evaluated critically. (Joint Comment, No. 15 at p. 6)

To substantiate the estimates for residential clothes washer lifetimes in the 

literature, DOE conducted an analysis of standard-capacity residential clothes washer 
145

lifetimes in the field based on a combination of shipments data and RECS 2005 data on 

the ages of the clothes washer products reported in the household stock. As described in 

chapter 8 of the direct final rue TSD, the analysis yielded an estimate of mean age for 

standard-capacity residential clothes washers of approximately 14.2 years. It also yielded 

a survival function that DOE incorporated as a probability distribution in its LCC 

analysis. Because the RECS data do not indicate whether the washer has top-loading or 

front-loading configuration, DOE was not able to derive separate lifetime estimates for 

these two product classes. DOE did not receive any data or analysis to support separate 

lifetimes for the different product classes.

See chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD for further details on the method and 

sources DOE used to develop product lifetimes.

9. Discount Rates

In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates to estimate the present 

value of future operating costs. DOE estimated a distributionseparate distributions of 

residential discount rates for clothes washers purchased as replacements and for washers 

purchased in new homes. To establish residential discount rates for the LCC analysis, 

DOE identified all debt or asset classes that might be used to purchase clothes washers, 

including household assets that might be affected indirectly. It estimated the average 

percentage shares of the various debt or asset classes for the average U.S. household 

using data from the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances

Comment [A9]: Changes recommended by 

OIRA.

(SCF) for 

1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, and 2007. Using the SCF and other sources, DOE 
146

then developed a distribution of rates for each type of debt and asset to represent the rates 

that may apply in the year in which amended standards would take effect. DOE assigned 

each sample household a specific discount rate drawn from one of the distributions. The 

average inflation-adjusted rate across all types of household debt and equity, weighted by 

the shares of each class, is 5.1 percent. DOE used the same approach for today’s direct

final rule. See chapter 8 in the direct final rule TSD for further details on the development 

of consumer discount rates.

10. Compliance Date of Amended Standards

In the context of EPCA, the compliance date is the future date when parties 

subject to the requirements of a new standard must comply. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to the direct final rule that may provide a reasonable basis for 

withdrawal under 42 USC 6295(o) or other applicable law, compliance with amended 

standards for residential clothes washers will be required on January 1, 2015. DOE 

calculated the LCC and PBP for clothes washers as if consumers would purchase new 

products in 2015. In the case of TSL 3, which includes a second set of standards for toploading standard clothes washers that would require compliance on January 1, 2018, 

DOE calculated separate LCC and PBP for clothes washers meeting these standards and 

purchased in 2018.

11. Base-Case Efficiency Distribution

To accurately estimate the share of consumers that would be affected by a 

standard at a particular efficiency level, DOE’s LCC analysis considered the projected 

Comment [A10]: Change recommended by 

OIRA.
147

distribution of product efficiencies that consumers purchase under the base case (i.e., the 

case without new energy efficiency standards). DOE refers to this distribution of product 

of efficiencies as a base-case efficiency distribution. DOE relied on data submitted by 

AHAM to estimate the base-case efficiency distributions for each of the product classes 

that were analyzed in the LCC and PBP analysis. To project the efficiency distributions 

in 2015, DOE considered the 2006–2008 trends and the potential effect of programs such 

as ENERGY STAR. 

For front-loading clothes washers, the data from AHAM show some increase in 

the share of higher efficiency levels between 2006 and 2008. However, by 2008 over 95 

percent of the front-loading clothes washer market was already at or above the 2011 

ENERGY STAR criteria (Efficiency Level 4). Therefore, DOE believes that the 

ENERGY STAR qualification requirements are likely to have a limited impact in further 

expanding the market shares of higher efficiency front-loading clothes washers. Based on 

the above considerations, DOE assumed that the 2008 market shares would remain 

constant through 2015.

For top-loading clothes washers, the data from AHAM show an increase in the 

share of medium- and high-efficiency levels (Efficiency Levels 2–8) from 6.3 percent in 

2006 to 8.5 percent in 2008. To estimate a trend from 2008 to 2015, DOE fit an 

exponential curve to the three data points, assuming that suggests the growth in share 

would level off at around 20 percent. The estimated total share of the medium- and highefficiency levels in 2015 is 19.2 percent. DOE then disaggregated this total share into 
148

shares of specific levels using assumptions described in chapter 8 of the direct final rule 

TSD.

Table IV-19 shows the 2015 base-case efficiency distribution for top-loading and 

front-loading clothes washers.

Table IV-19 Base-Case Efficiency Distribution by Product Class

Efficiency Level Top-Loading 

Standard Size

Front-Loading 

Standard Size

Top-Loading 

Compact Size

Front-Loading 

Compact Size

Baseline 40.4% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 40.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

2 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% -

3 0.9% 4.3% - -

4 0.9% 24.0% - -

5 0.9% 48.9% - -

6 9.1% 11.4% - -

7 4.6% 11.4% - -

8 0.0% 0.0% - -

12. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis

The payback period is the amount of time it takes the consumer to recover the 

additional installed cost of more efficient products, compared to baseline products, 

through energy cost savings. Payback periods are expressed in years. Payback periods 

that exceed the life of the product mean that the increased total installed cost is not 

recovered in reduced operating expenses.

The inputs to the PBP calculation are the total installed cost of the product to the 

customer for each efficiency level and the average annual operating expenditures for each 

Comment [A11]: Changes recommended by 

OIRA. 
149

efficiency level. The PBP calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis, except 

that discount rates are not needed. 

13. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Period

As noted above, EPCA, as amended, establishes a rebuttable presumption that a 

standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the 

consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level 

will be less than three times the value of the energy (and, as applicable, water) savings 

during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as 

calculated under the test procedure in place for that standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered efficiency level, DOE determined the value of the 

first year’s energy and water savings by calculating the quantity of those savings in 

accordance with the applicable DOE test procedure, and multiplying that amount by the 

average energy and water price forecast for the year in which compliance with the 

amended standard would be required. The results of the rebuttable payback period 

analysis are summarized in section V.B.1.c of this notice.

G.

The national impact analysis (NIA) assesses the national energy savings (NES) 

and the national net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs and savings that would 

be expected to result from new or amended standards at specific efficiency levels. 

(“Consumer” in this context refers to consumers of the product being regulated.) DOE 

calculates the NES and NPV based on projections of annual appliance shipments, along 

National Impact Analysis–National Energy Savings and Net Present Value Analysis 
150

with the annual energy consumption and total installed cost data from the energy use and 

LCC analyses. For the present analysis, DOE forecasted the energy savings, operating 

cost savings, product costs, and NPV of consumer benefits for products sold from 2015 

through 2044. 

DOE evaluates the impacts of new and amended standards by comparing basecase projections with standards-case projections. The base-case projections characterize 

energy use and consumer costs for each product class in the absence of new or amended 

energy conservation standards. DOE compares these projections with projections 

characterizing the market for each product class if DOE adopted new or amended 

standards at specific energy efficiency levels (i.e., the TSLs or standards cases) for that 

class. For the base-case forecast, DOE considers historical trends in efficiency and 

various forces that are likely to affect the mix of efficiencies over time. For the standards 

cases, DOE also considers how a given standard would likely affect the market shares of 

efficiencies greater than the standard. 

DOE uses an MS Excel spreadsheet model to calculate the energy savings and the 

national consumer costs and savings from each TSL. The TSD and other documentation 

that DOE provides during the rulemaking help explain the models and how to use them, 

and interested parties can review DOE’s analyses by changing various input quantities 

within the spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet model uses typical values (as opposed to 

probability distributions) as inputs.
151

For the results presented in today’s notice, DOE used projections of energy prices 

and housing starts from the AEO2010 Reference case. The Joint Comment stated that 

electricity prices should be subject to a sensitivity analysis and forecasts other than AEO. 

(Joint Comment, No. 15 at p. 5) As part of the NIA, DOE analyzed scenarios that used 

inputs from the AEO2010 Low Economic Growth and High Economic Growth cases. 

Those cases have higher and lower energy price trends compared to the Reference case, 

as well as higher and lower housing starts, which result in higher and lower appliance 

shipments to new homes. NIA results based on these cases are presented in appendix 10-

A of the direct final rule TSD. The range of forecasts in AEO2010 is sufficiently broad 

that using other long-range energy forecasts would not provide added value to the 

sensitivity analysis.

Table IV-20 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NIA analysis 

for the direct final rule. Discussion of these inputs and methods follows the table. See 

chapter 10 of the direct final rule TSD for further details.
152

Table IV-20 Summary of Inputs and Methods for the National Impact Analysis 

Inputs Method

Shipments Annual shipments from shipments 

model.

Compliance Date 

of Standard

2015.*

Base-Case 

Forecasted 

Efficiencies

Efficiency distributions are 

maintained unchanged during the 

forecast period.

Standards-Case 

Forecasted 

Efficiencies

Used a “roll-up” scenario for most 

efficiency levels and a “shift” 

scenario for highest efficiency 

levels. 

Annual Energy 

Consumption per 

Unit

Annual weighted-average values as 

a function of IMEF.**

Total Installed 

Cost per Unit

Annual weighted-average values as 

a function of IMEF.**

Incorporates forecast of future 

product prices based on historical 

data.

Annual Energy 

Cost per Unit

Annual weighted-average values as 

a function of the annual energy 

consumption per unit and energy 

prices. 

Repair and 

Maintenance 

Cost per Unit

Annual values as a function of 

efficiency level.

Energy Prices AEO2010

Energy Site-toSource 

Conversion 

Factor

forecasts (to 2035) and 

extrapolation through 2044. 

Varies yearly and is generated by 

NEMS-BT. 

Discount Rate Three and seven percent real.

Present Year Future expenses discounted to 

2011, when the final rule will be 

published. 

* For TSL 3, which includes two sets of standards for top-loading standard clothes washers, the compliance 

date for the second set of standards is in 2018.

**IMEF = integrated modified energy factor, which includes the energy used in the active, standby, and off 

modes. 
153

1. Shipments 

Forecasts of product shipments are needed to calculate the national impacts of 

standards on energy and water use, NPV, and future manufacturer cash flows. DOE 

develops shipment forecasts based on an analysis of key market drivers for residential 

clothes washers. In DOE’s shipments model, shipments of products are driven by new 

construction and stock replacements. The shipments model takes an accounting approach, 

tracking market shares of each product class and the vintage of units in the existing stock. 

Stock accounting uses product shipments as inputs to estimate the age distribution of inservice product stocks for all years. The age distribution of in-service product stocks is a 

key input to calculations of both the NES and NPV, because operating costs for any year 

depend on the age distribution of the stock. DOE also considers the impacts on shipments 

from changes in product purchase price and operating cost associated with higher energy 

efficiency levels. 

To forecast shipments under the base case, DOE utilized historical shipments data 

submitted by AHAM disaggregated by product class. AHAM and GE noted that they 

could not provide data on compact top-loading products given the few manufacturers and 

the resulting inability to aggregate the data. (AHAM, No. 16 at p. 8; GE, No. 20 at p. 1)

AWE suggested that DOE consider the trend in multi-family housing toward inunit washers and away from common-area clothes washers. (AWE, No. 12 at p. 3) DOE 

considered trends away from common-area clothes washers in multi-family housing by 

looking at changes in the numbers of households with clothes washers. DOE used the 
154

data contained in the 2005 RECS to characterize ownership of residential clothes washers 

and usage in households of various types, including multi-family housing. For future 

trends, DOE captured in-unit washers within multi-family housing by estimating future 

clothes washer saturations in all new residential construction, including multi-family 

housing.

To estimate the effects on product shipments from increases in product price 

projected to accompany amended standards at higher efficiency levels, DOE applied a

cross-price elasticity. Cross-price impacts measure the change in the market share of one 

washer configuration (e.g., top loaders) caused by a change in the price of the other 

washer configuration (e.g., front loaders). DOE estimated a logistic regression model 

equation that derives the relative probability of the market share of top- and frontloading clothes washers as a function of the monthly sales-weighted average price of toploaders and front-loaders and the ratio of the monthly sales-weighted average of frontloader tub volume to the monthly sales-weighted average of top-loader tub volume. The 

equation indicates that front loader market share is positively correlated with top loader 

price and size and negatively correlated with front loader price. The regression results 

were used to derive the cross price impact of a change in the top-loading washer price on 

the front-loader market share (and vice versa).

DOE also applied a price elasticity parameter to estimate the effect of standards 

on each product class by itself. DOE estimated the price elasticity parameter using a 

regression analysis that used purchase price and efficiency data specific to residential 
155

clothes washers, as well as residential refrigerators and dishwashers, during 1980–2002. 

The estimated “relative price elasticity” incorporates the impacts from purchase price, 

operating cost, and household income, and it also declines over time. DOE estimated 

shipments in each standards case using the relative price elasticity along with the change 

in the relative price between a standards case and the base case. 

For details on the shipments analysis, see chapter 9 of the direct final rule TSD.

2. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case and Standards Cases

A key component of the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency forecasted for the 

base case (without new or amended standards) and each of the standards cases. Section 

IV.F.11 described how DOE developed a base-case energy efficiency distribution (which 

yields a shipment-weighted average efficiency) for each of the considered product classes 

for the first year of the forecast period. To project the trend in efficiency over the entire 

forecast period, DOE considered recent trends and the potential effect of programs such 

as ENERGY STAR. As discussed in section IV.F.11, DOE did not find a basis for 

projecting an increase in the average efficiency of front-loading clothes washers. For toploading clothes washers, DOE assumed that the growth in share of the medium- and highefficiency levels would level off at around 20 percent. Although there is room for the 

shares of the higher efficiency levels to grow, DOE believes that the growth will be 

constrained by the likelihood that consumers with a strong interest in energy efficiency 

will purchase front-loading clothes washers instead of top-loading clothes washers.
156

The historical record suggests that the likely market response to new or amended 

standards is that lower efficiency baseline models will roll up to the standard efficiency 

level, and some products will exceed the minimum requirements. To estimate efficiency 

trends in the standards cases, DOE has used “roll-up” and/or “shift” scenarios in its 

standards rulemakings. Under the “roll-up” scenario, DOE assumes: (1) product 

efficiencies in the base case that do not meet the standard level under consideration 

would “roll-up” to meet the new standard level; and (2) product efficiencies above the 

standard level under consideration would not be affected. Under the “shift” scenario, 

DOE re-orients the distribution above the new minimum energy conservation standard.

For the direct final rule, DOE primarily used a roll-up scenario to establish the 

distribution of efficiencies for the year that compliance with revised standards would be 

required and for subsequent years. It also considered the potential impacts of the

ENERGY STAR program. Because ENERY STAR criteria in 2011 consist of an MEF ≥ 

2.00 and a WF ≤ 6.0, DOE assumed that the ENERGY STAR program would not affect 

the front-loader or top-loader market for any new standards set at levels less efficient than

the 2011 ENERGY STAR requirements. As a result, for standards set at top-loader 

efficiency levels 1 through 5 and front-loader efficiency levels 1 through 3, DOE 

estimated that efficiency distributions would remain unchanged from 2015 through 2044. 

For any new standards set at efficiency levels that meet the 2011 ENERGY STAR

requirements, DOE assumed that the market share of efficiency levels beyond the 

standard will increase. The level of increase was set equal to the market share change 

from 2006 to 2008 for the efficiency level directly preceding the standard. Using the 
157

above criteria, DOE assumed that from 2015 to 2022 the shipment weighted integrated 

modified energy factor (SWIMEF) market share would grow linearly. In all cases, 

because DOE has insufficient information on which to forecast changes in the market 

beyond 2022, DOE assumed that after 2022 the market would remain unchanged through 

2044.

The details of DOE’s approach to forecast efficiency trends are described in 

chapter 10 of the direct final rule TSD.

3. Total Installed Cost per Unit

As discussed in section IV.F.1, in the analysis for today’s notice, DOE developed 

a price trend based on historical PPI data for household laundry equipment. It used this 

trend to forecast the prices of clothes washers sold in each year in the forecast period 

(2015–2044). DOE applied the same values to forecast prices for each product class at 

each considered efficiency level.

To evaluate the impact of the uncertainty of the price trend estimates, DOE 

investigated the impact of different product price forecasts on the consumer net present 

value for the considered TSLs for residential clothes washers. DOE considered three 

product price forecast sensitivity cases: (1) a trend based on the experience curve 

approach;31

 31 In the experience curve method, the real product price (or proxy thereof) is related to the cumulative 

production or “experience” with a product. As experience accumulates, the cost of producing the next unit 

decreases. The percentage reduction in cost that occurs with each doubling of cumulative production is 

known as the learning or experience rate. In typical experience curve formulations, the experience rate 

(2) a trend based on the “chained price index--other consumer durable goods 
158

except ophthalmic” that was forecasted for AEO2010; and (3) constant prices at 2010 

levels. The results of these sensitivity cases are described in appendix 10-C of the direct 

final rule TSD.

4. National Energy and Water Savings

For each year in the forecast period, DOE calculates the national energy and water 

savings (NES) for each standard level by multiplying the stock of products affected by 

the energy conservation standards by the per-unit annual energy savings. Cumulative 

energy and water savings are the sum of the NES for each year.

To estimate the national energy savings expected from appliance standards, DOE 

uses a multiplicative factor to convert site energy consumption (at the home) into primary 

or source energy consumption (the energy required to convert and deliver the site 

energy). These conversion factors account for the energy used at power plants to generate 

electricity and losses in transmission and distribution. The conversion factors vary over 

time because of projected changes in generation sources (i.e., the power plant types 

projected to provide electricity to the country). The factors that DOE developed are 

marginal values, which represent the response of the system to an incremental decrease in 

consumption associated with appliance standards. For today’s rule, DOE used annual 

site-to-source conversion factors based on the version of NEMS that corresponds to 

AEO2010

 parameter is derived using two historical data series: price (or cost) and cumulative production, which is a 

function of shipments during a long time span.

, which provides energy forecasts through 2035. For 2036–2044, DOE used 

conversion factors that remain constant at the 2035 values.
159

Section 1802 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) directed DOE to 

contract a study with the National Academy of Science (NAS) to examine whether the 

goals of energy efficiency standards are best served by measuring energy consumed, and 

efficiency improvements, at the actual point of use or through the use of the full-fuelcycle, beginning at the source of energy production. (Pub. L. No. 109-58 (August 8, 

2005)). NAS appointed a committee on “Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement 

Approaches to Energy Efficiency Standards” to conduct the study, which was completed 

in May 2009. The NAS committee defined full-fuel-cycle energy consumption as 

including, in addition to site energy use: energy consumed in the extraction, processing, 

and transport of primary fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas; energy losses in thermal 

combustion in power generation plants; and energy losses in transmission and 

distribution to homes and commercial buildings.

In evaluating the merits of using point-of-use and full-fuel-cycle measures, the 

NAS committee noted that DOE uses what the committee referred to as “extended site” 

energy consumption to assess the impact of energy use on the economy, energy security, 

and environmental quality. The extended site measure of energy consumption includes 

the energy consumed during the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity 

but, unlike the full-fuel-cycle measure, does not include the energy consumed in 

extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels. A majority of the NAS committee 

concluded that extended site energy consumption understates the total energy consumed 

to make an appliance operational at the site. As a result, the NAS committee 
160

recommended that DOE consider shifting its analytical approach over time to use a fullfuel-cycle measure of energy consumption when assessing national and environmental 

impacts, especially with respect to the calculation of greenhouse gas emissions. The NAS 

committee also recommended that DOE provide more comprehensive information to the 

public through labels and other means, such as an enhanced website. For those appliances 

that use multiple fuels (e.g., water heaters), the NAS committee indicated that measuring 

full-fuel-cycle energy consumption would provide a more complete picture of energy 

consumed and permit comparisons across many different appliances, as well as an 

improved assessment of impacts.

In response to the NAS committee recommendations, DOE issued a notice of 

proposed policy for incorporating a full-fuel cycle analysis into the methods it uses to 

estimate the likely impacts of energy conservation standards on energy use and 

emissions. 75 FR 51423 (Aug. 20, 2010). Specifically, DOE proposed to use full-fuelcycle (FFC) measures of energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, rather than the 

primary (extended site) energy measures it currently uses. Additionally, DOE proposed to 

work collaboratively with the Federal Trade Commission to make FFC energy and GHG 

emissions data available to the public to enable consumers to make cross-class 

comparisons. On October 7, 2010, DOE held an informal public meeting to discuss and 

receive comments on its planned approach. The notice, a transcript of the public meeting, 

and all public comments received by DOE are available at:

www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=EERE-2010-BT-NOA-
161

0028. DOE intends to develop a final policy statement on the subject and then take steps 

to begin implementing that policy in rulemakings and other activities.

a. Accounting for Other Energy Impacts

In the framework document for residential clothes washers, DOE requested 

comment on the issue of embedded energy (i.e., the energy required for water treatment 

and delivery). Earthjustice maintained that DOE’s legal justification for not considering 

embedded energy “ignores that EPCA not only provides ample authority for DOE to 

consider this impact, but actually commands its consideration in weighing the economic 

justification for efficiency standards.” (Earthjustice, No. 17 at p. 10) The California 

Utilities said that DOE should attempt to address the issue of embedded energy in water 

in its rulemaking analyses. (California Utilities, No. 19 at p. 5)

In response, DOE notes that EPCA directs DOE to consider (when determining 

whether a standard is economically justified) “the total projected amount of energy, or as 

applicable, water, savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard.” 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III) DOE interprets “directly from the imposition of the 

standard” to include energy used in the generation, transmission, and distribution of fuels 

used by appliances. In addition, DOE is evaluating the full-fuel-cycle measure, which 

includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels. 

Unlike the energy used for water treatment and delivery, both DOE’s current accounting 

of primary energy savings and the full-fuel-cycle measure are directly linked to the 

energy used by appliances. 
162

Several interested parties commented that DOE’s calculation of energy 

consumption should include the energy used in the manufacture, distribution, and 

ultimate recycling of residential clothes washers. (AWE, No. 12 at p. 2; Joint Comment, 

No. 15 at p. 6; Earthjustice, No. 17 at pp. 9–10) Both DOE’s current accounting of 

primary energy savings and the full-fuel-cycle measure are directly linked to the energy 

used by appliances. The imposition of an energy efficiency standard for residential 

clothes washers would not lead directly to energy savings in the manufacture, distribution 

and recycling of clothes washers. DOE believes that any such savings would be both 

indirect and difficult to determine. Thus, DOE did not consider such energy use in the 

NIA pursuant to 42 USC 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III).

5. Net Present Value of Consumer Benefit

The inputs for determining the net present value (NPV) of the total costs and 

benefits experienced by consumers of considered appliances are: (1) total annual installed 

cost, (2) total annual savings in operating costs, and (3) a discount factor. DOE calculates 

net savings each year as the difference between the base case and each standards case in 

total savings in operating costs and total increases in installed costs. DOE calculates 

operating cost savings over the life of each product shipped during the forecast period.

In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future years by a 

discount factor to determine their present value. For today’s direct final rule, DOE 

estimated the NPV of appliance consumer benefits using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent 
163

real discount rate. DOE uses these discount rates in accordance with guidance provided 

by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to Federal agencies on the development 

of regulatory analysis.32 The discount rates for the determination of NPV are in contrast 

to the discount rates used in the LCC analysis, which are designed to reflect a consumer’s 

perspective. The 7-percent real value is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of 

return to private capital in the U.S. economy. The 3-percent real value represents the 

“social rate of time preference,” which is the rate at which society discounts future 

consumption flows to their present value.

The California Utilities stated that because 3 percent is closer to the OMB’s 

current estimated 30-year real discount rate, DOE should give primary weight to 

calculations based on the 3-percent real rate. (California Utilities, No. 19 at p. 6)

DOE notes that OMB Circular A-4 references an earlier Circular A-94, which 

states that a real discount rate of 7 percent should be used as a base case for regulatory 

analysis. The 7-percent rate is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return on 

private capital in the U.S. economy. It approximates the opportunity cost of capital and, 

according to Circular A-94, is the appropriate discount rate whenever the primary effect 

of a regulation is to displace or alter the use of capital in the private sector. In preparing 

Circular A-4, OMB found that the average rate of return on capital remains near the 7-

percent rate estimated earlier. Circular A-4 also states that when a regulation primarily 

and directly affects private consumption, a lower discount rate (the social rate of time 

 32 OMB Circular A-4 (Sept. 17, 2003), section E, “Identifying and Measuring Benefits and Costs. Available 

at: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m03-21.html.
164

preference) is appropriate. It suggests that the real rate of return on long-term government 

debt may provide a fair approximation of the social rate of time preference, and states 

that during the past 30 years, this rate has averaged about 3 percent in real terms on a pretax basis. Circular A-4 concludes that “for regulatory analysis, [agencies] should provide 

estimates of net benefits using both 3 percent and 7 percent.” Consistent with the OMB 

guidance, for today’s rule DOE provided and considered results derived using discount 

rates of 3 percent and 7 percent.

6. Benefits from Effects of Standards on Energy Prices

Reduction in electricity consumption associated with amended standards for 

residential clothes washers could reduce the electricity prices charged to consumers in all 

sectors of the economy and thereby reduce their electricity expenditures. 

Commenting on the framework document, the California Utilities stated that the 

electricity price mitigation effects produced by new standards for clothes washers should 

be documented and the value of reduced electricity bills to all consumers quantified as a 

benefit. (California Utilities, No. 19 at p. 6) 

For the direct final rule, DOE used NEMS-BT to assess the impacts of the 

reduced need for new electric power plants and infrastructure projected to result from 

clothes washer standards. In NEMS-BT, changes in power generation infrastructure 

affect utility revenue requirements, which in turn affect electricity prices. DOE estimated 

the impact on electricity prices associated with each considered TSL. Although the 
165

aggregate benefits for electricity users are potentially large, there may be negative effects 

on some of the actors involved in electricity supply, such as actors involved in power 

plant construction and fuel suppliers. Because there is uncertainty about the extent to 

which the benefits for electricity users from reduced electricity prices would be a transfer 

from actors involved in electricity supply to electricity consumers, DOE is continuing to 

investigate the extent to which electricity price changes projected to result from standards 

represent a net gain to society.

H.

In analyzing the potential impact of new or amended standards on consumers, 

DOE evaluates the impact on identifiable subgroups of consumers (

Consumer Subgroup Analysis

e.g., low-income 

households) that may be disproportionately affected by a national standard. DOE 

evaluates impacts on particular subgroups of consumers primarily by analyzing the LCC 

impacts and PBP for those particular consumers from alternative standard levels. Chapter 

11 in the direct final rule TSD describes the consumer subgroup analysis.

In response to the framework document, interested parties requested that DOE 

consider a number of subgroups for analysis. The Joint Comment said that renters and 

disabled homeowners should be considered as LCC subgroups. (Joint Comment, No. 15

at p. 6) AHAM and Whirlpool stated that DOE should consider low-income households 

as a consumer subgroup, because they are affected by the cost increases engendered by 

efficiency increases. (AHAM, No. 24 at p. 3; Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 9) ALS supported 

considering subgroups comprising low-income households and senior citizens. (ALS, No. 
166

13 at p. 12) Whirlpool said that DOE should consider a consumer subgroup comprising 

families with young children. (Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 9) 

For this rule, DOE analyzed the impacts of the considered standard levels on lowincome households and senior-only households. DOE did not examine renters as a 

subgroup. DOE notes that, in most cases, renters pay the electricity bill but do not own 

the clothes washer in their home. To some extent, the higher cost of a more-efficient 

clothes washer incurred by the building owner would likely be passed on to the renter 

through increased rent. Because DOE is not aware of information that would allow it to 

reliably assess the extent to which such “pass-through” would occur, it was not able to 

quantitatively analyze the impacts of alternative standard levels on renters. DOE did not 

consider families with children as a subgroup. To the extent such families have low 

income, they are already included in the analysis of low-income households. DOE had no 

information to support the contention that families with children would otherwise be 

negatively affected by a standard. Lastly, DOE did not have any information with which

to analyze disabled people as a subgroup.

I.

The following sections address the various steps taken to analyze the impacts of 

the amended standards on manufacturers. These steps include conducting a series of 

analyses, interviewing manufacturers, and evaluating the comments received from 

interested parties during this rulemaking.

Manufacturer Impact Analysis
167

1. Overview

In determining whether an amended energy conservation standard for residential 

clothes washers subject to this rulemaking is economically justified, DOE is required to 

consider “the economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and on the 

consumers of the products subject to such standard.” (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)) The 

statute also calls for an assessment of the impact of any lessening of competition as 

determined by the Attorney General that is likely to result from the adoption of a 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) DOE conducted the MIA to estimate the 

financial impact of amended energy conservation standards on manufacturers, and to 

assess the impacts of such standards on employment and manufacturing capacity.

The MIA is both a quantitative and qualitative analysis. The quantitative part of 

the MIA relies on the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), an industry cashflow model customized for the residential clothes washers covered in this rulemaking. 

See section IV.I.2 below, for details on the GRIM analysis. The qualitative part of the 

MIA addresses factors such as product characteristics, characteristics of particular firms, 

and market trends. The complete MIA is discussed in chapter 12 of the direct final rule 

TSD. DOE conducted the MIA in the three phases described below.

a. Phase 1, Industry Profile

In Phase 1 of the MIA, DOE prepared a profile of the residential clothes washer 

industry based on the market and technology assessment prepared for this rulemaking. 
168

Before initiating the detailed impact studies, DOE collected information on the present 

and past market structure and characteristics of the industry, tracking trends in market 

share, product attributes, product shipments, manufacturer markups, and the cost 

structure for various manufacturers.

The profile also included a top-down analysis of manufacturers in the industry 

using Security and Exchange Commission 10–K filings,

33 Standard & Poor’s stock 

reports,34 and corporate annual reports released by both public and privately held 

companies. DOE used this and other publicly available information to derive preliminary 

financial inputs for the GRIM (e.g., revenues, cost of goods sold, depreciation, SG&A, 

and research and development (R&D) expenses).

b. Phase 2, Industry Cash Flow Analysis

Phase 2 focused on the financial impacts of potential amended energy 

conservation standards on the industry as a whole. Amended energy conservation 

standards can affect manufacturer cash flows in three distinct ways: (1) by creating a 

need for increased investment, (2) by raising production costs per unit, and (3) by altering 

revenue due to higher per-unit prices and/or possible changes in sales volumes. DOE 

used the GRIM to model these effects in a cash-flow analysis of the residential clothes 

washer industry. In performing this analysis, DOE used the financial values derived 

during Phase 1 and the shipment assumptions from the NIA.

 33 Available online at www.sec.gov. 34 Available online at www2.standardandpoors.com.
169

c. Phase 3, Sub-Group Impact Analysis

Using average cost assumptions to develop an industry-cash-flow estimate may 

not adequately assess differential impacts of amended energy conservation standards 

among manufacturer subgroups. For example, small businesses, manufacturers of niche 

products, or companies exhibiting a cost structure that differs significantly from the 

industry average could be more negatively affected. During the manufacturer interviews, 

DOE discussed financial topics specific to each manufacturer and obtained each 

manufacturer’s view of the industry as a whole. DOE reports the MIA impacts of 

amended energy conservation standards by grouping together the impacts on 

manufacturers of certain product classes. While DOE did not identify any other subgroup 

of manufacturers of residential clothes washers that would warrant a separate analysis, 

DOE specifically investigated impacts on small business manufacturers. See section VI.B

for more information.

The MIA also addresses the direct employment impacts in manufacturing of 

clothes washers. DOE uses census data and information gained through manufacturer 

interviews in conjunction with the GRIM to estimate the domestic labor expenditures and 

number of domestic production workers in the base case and at each TSL from 2011 to 

2044. 

2. GRIM Analysis

DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the changes in cash flow that result in a higher or 

lower industry value. The GRIM analysis is a standard, annual cash-flow analysis that 
170

incorporates manufacturer costs, markups, shipments, and industry financial information 

as inputs, and models changes in costs, distribution of shipments, investments, and 

manufacturer margins that could result from amended energy conservation standards. The 

GRIM spreadsheet uses the inputs to arrive at a series of annual cash flows, beginning 

with the base year of the analysis, 2011 (which accounts for the investments needed to 

bring products into compliance), and continuing to 2044. DOE calculated INPVs by 

summing the stream of annual discounted cash flows during this period. DOE uses the 

industry average weighted average cost of capital (WACC) of 8.5 percent, as this 

represents the minimum rate of return necessary to cover the debt and equity obligations 

manufacturers use to finance operations.

DOE used the GRIM to compare INPV in the base case with INPV at various 

TSLs (the standards cases). The difference in INPV between the base and standards cases 

represents the financial impact of the amended standard on manufacturers. DOE collected 

this information from a number of sources, including publicly available data and 

interviews with a number of manufacturers. Additional details about the GRIM can be 

found in chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD.

a. GRIM Key Inputs

Manufacturer Production Costs

Changes in the manufacturer production costs (MPCs) of residential clothes 

washers can affect revenues, gross margins, and cash flow of the industry, making these 

product cost data key GRIM inputs for DOE’s analysis. DOE used the MPCs calculated 
171

in the engineering analysis for each efficiency level, as described in section IV.C above, 

and further detailed in chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD. DOE used the AHAM data 

submittal to determine the MPCs at most efficiency levels for top-loading and frontloading standard product classes. To supplement the AHAM submittal and calculate maxtech MPCs for these product classes, DOE also conducted product tear downs to generate 

MPCs using a manufacturing cost model. DOE created separate cost curves for toploading and front-loading compact product classes using data from tear-downs to develop 

baseline MPCs and applied the incremental costs that correspond to the proposed design 

options from the standard product classes. The cost model also disaggregated the MPCs 

into material, labor, overhead, and depreciation.

Base-Case Shipments Forecast

The GRIM estimates manufacturer revenues based on total unit shipment 

forecasts and the distribution of these values by efficiency level and product class. 

Changes in the efficiency mix at each standard level affect manufacturer finances. For 

this analysis, the GRIM uses the NIA shipments forecasts from 2011 to 2044, the end of 

the analysis period.

To calculate shipments, DOE developed a single shipment model for all 

residential clothes washers and disaggregated total shipments into front-loading and toploading clothes washers, and assigned shipments to both the standard and compact 

product classes. In the base case, DOE forecasted change in market share of each product 
172

class by utilizing historical shipments data submitted by AHAM.

Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

Amended energy conservation standards will cause manufacturers to incur 

conversion costs to bring their production facilities and product designs into compliance. 

For the MIA, DOE classified these costs into two major groups: (1) product conversion 

costs and (2) capital conversion costs. Product conversion costs are investments in 

research, development, testing, marketing, and other non-capitalized costs focused on 

making product designs comply with the amended energy conservation standard. Capital 

conversion costs are investments in property, plant, and equipment to adapt or change 

existing production facilities so that new product designs can be fabricated and 

assembled.

DOE based the conversion cost estimates required to meet each TSL on the 

AHAM data submittal for all product classes. Using the AHAM data submittal for both 

the product and capital conversion costs ensures that the costs required to meet amended 

energy conservation standards are consistent with the incremental costs to reach those 

efficiencies. DOE validated these costs in manufacturer interviews and through the 

product teardown analysis.

At each top-loading and front-loading standard efficiency level, DOE matched the 

IMEF efficiency level to the corresponding MEF metric and used the aggregated total 

industry capital and product conversion cost from the May 2010 AHAM submittal. DOE 
173

multiplied each aggregated capital and product conversion total for these product classes 

by 1.05 to account for the non-AHAM member shipments. For the new max-tech levels 

revised using the AHAM data submittal, DOE scaled the aggregated total conversion 

costs at the next lowest efficiency level by the same percentage increase in production 

costs. DOE did not increase the required product and capital conversion costs for 

efficiency levels that do not contribute to a change in active mode efficiency to ensure

that the costs required are consistent with the incremental costs to meet amended energy 

conservation standards and because, as described in section IV.C.3, the standby power 

technology options would require minimal product development.

For the top-loading compact product class, DOE scaled the top-loading standard 

conversion costs for the same efficiency level by the relative number of compact 

platforms. DOE did not include conversion costs for the front-loading compact product 

classes because the design options analyzed to improve efficiency would require minimal 

changes to baseline products. 

DOE took a number of steps to analyze the conversion costs in the AHAM data 

submittal. DOE reviewed the AHAM conversion costs during manufacturer interviews to 

understand the magnitude and cost of the required conversions for individual 

manufacturers. DOE also reviewed public information in the CEC, ENERGY STAR, and 

CEE product databases as well as manufacturer websites to understand which product

lines manufacturers would need to upgrade at each efficiency level. DOE also reviewed 
174

the AHAM submittal in conjunction with the technology options and information learned 

during product teardowns for multiple product lines.

DOE’s estimates of the total capital conversion and production conversion costs 

by TSL can be found in section V.B.2 of today’s direct final rule. The estimates of the 

total capital conversion and product conversion costs by product class and efficiency 

level can be found in chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD.

b. GRIM Scenarios

Standards-Case Shipment Forecasts

The MIA results presented in section V.B.2 all use shipments from the reference 

NIA scenario in the GRIM. To determine efficiency distributions in the standards case for 

the reference NIA scenario, DOE analyzed the roll-up scenario. In this scenario, DOE 

assumed that product efficiencies in the base case that did not meet the standard would 

roll up to meet the new standard in the compliance year. See section IV.G.2 for a 

description of the standards case efficiency distribution. For standards-case shipments, 

DOE used a relative price elasticity that considers the possibility of higher first costs 

lowering total shipments. The reference NIA scenario also accounted for cross-price 

elasticity between top-loading and front-loading products to analyze the respective

market share of each product class as prices change relative to one another.

The reference NIA scenario used historical data to derive a price scaling index to 

forecast product costs. The MPCs and MSPs in the GRIM use the default price forecast 
175

for all scenarios. See section IV.G.4 for a discussion of DOE’s price forecasting 

methodology.

Markup Scenarios

MSP is equal to MPC times a manufacturer markup. The MSP includes direct 

manufacturing production costs (i.e., labor, material, and overhead estimated in DOE’s 

MPCs) and all non-production costs (i.e., SG&A, R&D, and interest), along with profit. 

To calculate the baseline manufacturer markup, DOE evaluated publicly available 

financial information for manufacturers of major household appliances whose product 

offerings include residential clothes washers. DOE also received feedback supporting the 

1.22 baseline manufacturer markup during manufacturer interviews. In the base case for 

all three GRIM markup scenarios, DOE assumed that the products that meet the January 

2011 ENERGY STAR criteria earn a moderately higher manufacturer markup than 

“baseline” products that fall below those efficiencies. Additionally, products that meet 

the CEE Tier 2 and Tier 3 criteria earn an incrementally higher markup than those that 

meet the 2011 ENERGY STAR criteria.

For the MIA, DOE modeled three standards-case markup scenarios to represent 

the uncertainty regarding the potential impacts on prices and profitability for 

manufacturers following the implementation of amended energy conservation standards: 

(1) a no commoditization markup scenario, (2) a tiered markup scenario, and (3) and a 

tiered markup with margin pressure scenario. Modifying these markups from the base 
176

case to the standards cases yields different sets of impacts on manufacturers’ changing 

industry revenue and cash flow. 

The no commoditization scenario assumes that the base-case markup structure 

(with baseline, ENERGY STAR, and CEE Tier 2 and Tier 3 markups) is maintained in 

the standards case. This scenario represents the upper bound of industry profitability 

because manufacturers are able to fully pass through additional costs from amended

standards to their customers. In addition to fully passing through higher production costs, 

manufacturers continue to earn premium markups after standards for products that are no 

longer differentiated by the ENERGY STAR and CEE programs.

The tiered markup scenario also starts with the three different product markups in 

the base case (baseline, ENERGY STAR, and CEE Tier 2 and Tier 3 markups). In the 

standards case, the tiered markup scenario considers the situation in which the breadth of 

a manufacturer’s portfolio of products shrinks and amended standards result in higher-tier 

products moving to lower tiers. As a result, higher efficiency products that previously 

commanded the ENERGY STAR and CEE Tier 2 and Tier 3 markups are assigned the 

ENERGY STAR and baseline markups, respectively. This scenario models a reduction in 

markups that manufacturers may experience as standards increase and reflects one of the 

industry’s key concerns about product commoditization at higher efficiency levels as 

efficiency differentiators are eliminated.
177

DOE also modeled a lower bound profitability scenario. In the tiered markup with 

margin pressure scenario, the markups of products that exceed the minimum energy 

conservation standards similarly move to lower efficiency tiers as standards eliminate 

current efficiency differentiators. In this scenario, the manufacturer markups at the new 

minimum standard are also lowered. For both top-loading and front-loading clothes 

washers, manufacturers are able to maintain only the operating profit of the baseline 

product in absolute dollars. For products at the new minimum energy conservation 

standards, the higher production costs and the investments required to comply with the 

amended energy conservation standard do not yield additional operating profit. This 

scenario models concerns that higher production costs for minimally compliant products 

could greatly hurt manufacturer profitability because a large segment of the market is 

greatly impacted by increases in first costs and there would be tremendous pressure to 

keep entry level products close to today’s prices.

3. Discussion of Comments

During the framework public meeting, interested parties commented on the 

assumptions and results of the manufacturer impacts presented in the framework 

document. Commenters discussed several topics, including the cumulative regulatory 

burden on manufacturers, manufacturer tax credits, and manufacturer subgroups. DOE 

addresses these comments below.
178

a. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

DOE requested comment in the framework document on other regulations that it 

should consider in its examination of cumulative regulatory burden. DOE received a 

number of comments from interested parties.

AHAM stated that the International Association of Plumbing and Manufacturing 

Officials (IAPMO) recently released a draft version of “The Green Plumbing and 

Mechanical Model Supplement” for comment. The draft suggests that local 

municipalities may adopt a requirement for a WF of 5.0 or less. AHAM commented that 

if this proposal moves forward, it will introduce substantial additional regulatory burden 

for clothes washer manufacturers, as these requirements are substantially lower than 2011 

ENERGY STAR levels. (AHAM, No.15 at p. 5) Whirlpool stated that the proliferation of 

green building standards from entities such as the U.S. Green Building Council 

(USGBC), EPA, National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), and now IAPMO, 

creates an additional burden on manufacturers. (Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 7) Conversely, 

ASAP argued that the IAPMO specifications referred to by AHAM are voluntary codes 

that local communities can consider. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 96) 

ASAP also commented that misapplying voluntary criteria in an attempt to write local 

standards is a hazard regardless of efficiency standards. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 7 at p. 96) 

AHAM and GE stated that CEE Tiers continue to be raised in response to DOE 

standards levels, and local municipalities may require a CEE Tier rating for various 
179

incentives. In general, CEE Tiers are some percentage of a DOE standard and do not 

have strong data to support the levels. AHAM and GE commented that CEE Tiers may 

push the technology beyond practical performance and/or price points. (AHAM, No. 16

at p. 5; AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 95; GE, No. 20 at p. 1) ASAP 

commented that DOE is concerned with outside regulatory changes, and the CEE Tiers 

Program is not a regulatory program. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 96)

For the cumulative regulatory burden, DOE attempts to quantify or describe the 

impacts of other Federal regulations that have a compliance date within approximately 

three years of the compliance date of this rulemaking. While DOE describes voluntary 

programs that influence the efficiency of clothes washers in the cumulative burden and 

acknowledges that these programs can impact the product offerings of residential clothes 

washer manufacturers, DOE does not quantify the costs to comply with future voluntary 

programs because they are outside the scope of the cumulative regulatory burden. DOE 

notes that a WF of 5.0 or less considered by IAPMO corresponds to the front-loading 

standard size standards in the direct final rule and in the Joint Petition for 2015. DOE also 

notes that 42 USC 6297 describes EPCA’s preemption of state and local regulation of 

appliance efficiency, including such requirements in State or local building codes.

ALS commented on the cumulative regulatory burden of the Restriction of 

Hazardous Substances (RoHS) Directive already existing in Europe and similar 

legislation that has been proposed in some states in the United States. (ALS, No. 13 at p. 

12) Whirlpool stated that DOE should consider the increasing regulation of materials and 
180

RoHS proposals in its analysis of residential clothes washers. (Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 7) 

AHAM commented that RoHS, and other hazardous substance issues are substantial 

regulatory burdens that are accumulating on manufacturers. (AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 7 at p. 165)

Most manufacturers of residential clothes washers that sell products in the United 

States also sell products in the European Union and must comply with the RoHS directive 

for those products sold in the European Union. While the potential restrictions of other 

hazardous substances and the potential for states to implement similar bans are also 

concerns for manufacturers, there is currently no corresponding Federal ban on many of 

the substances found in the RoHS directive. Therefore, DOE does not account for RoHS

compliance costs in its calculation of product conversion costs.

AHAM stated that EPA is requiring the transition away from 

hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), a shift to which the home appliance industry must 

devote resources. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 165) In response, DOE 

notes that residential clothes washers do not use HCFCs, and none of the design options 

analyzed by DOE would require changes to clothes washers due to the EPA phase-out. 

Several manufacturers commented on the burden imposed by UL standards. ALS 

stated that a cumulative regulatory burden is imposed by the revision of UL Standard 

2158 for clothes dryer safety, which requires fire containment test compliance by March 

20, 2013. (ALS, No. 13 at p. 12) Whirlpool is concerned with the cumulative regulatory 

burden of new UL standards on entrapment for both clothes washers and dishwashers, 
181

new UL fire containment standards for clothes dryers, and a number of other safety 

standards for both products and components that are propagated by UL. (Whirlpool, No. 

22 at p. 7) AHAM stated that there are several UL safety and functional standards that 

draw resources from manufacturers. BSH stated that UL 2157 and UL 2158 have been 

revised and present a regulatory burden to laundry appliance manufacturers. (BSH, No. 

11 at p. 5) Miele stated that UL 2157 may require redesign of door lock mechanisms to 

prevent child entrapment, and that a similar effort is underway for dishwashers. UL 2158 

was just revised, which, according to Miele will also cause a major redesign for fire 

containment in clothes dryer manufacturers. (Miele, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at 

p. 165)

In the clothes dryer rulemaking, DOE accounted for the conversion costs for 

manufacturers to comply with the revisions to UL 2158 as mentioned in the comments

from interested parties. DOE notes that the UL 2157 and 2158 are not Federal 

regulations. In contrast to the RoHS Directive requirements discussed previously, UL 

certification is a de facto requirement for selling products in the U.S. because many local 

building codes require all installed products to meet safety regulations. DOE has included 

the UL certification costs for both UL 2157 and UL 2158 as a sensitivity scenario in the

GRIM, but does not include the UL conversion costs in the main MIA results. Refer to 

chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD for more information about how DOE calculated 

the UL conversion costs.
182

AHAM, ALS, GE, and Whirlpool stated that the existing DOE rulemakings for 

commercial clothes washer and residential clothes dryer minimum standards represent a 

cumulative regulatory burden. Some of these commenters added that the DOE 

refrigerator and room air conditioner rulemaking result in additional regulatory burdens. 

(AHAM, No. 16 at p. 6; AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 96; ALS, No. 13

at p. 12; GE, No. 20 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 7)

DOE agrees that these rulemakings are a part of the cumulative regulatory burden 

on manufacturers. DOE has attempted to quantify the impact of the other DOE energy 

conservation standards that have a compliance date within approximately three years of 

the compliance date of this rulemaking in chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD.

AHAM added that cumulative regulatory burden is made even more demanding 

by the current economic conditions, and this rulemaking should explicitly consider 

cumulative regulatory impact in the economic justification analysis. (AHAM, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 96) PG&E stated that its understanding is that DOE 

compares the standards-case impacts to the base-case impacts, so that events such as the 

recession and other regulatory burdens that are independent of this rulemaking would not 

be considered. (PG&E, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 167) ASAP questioned 

how DOE intends to deal with the effects of the economic downturn and the potential 

recovery on shipment forecasts, and whether there is some sort of consistent approach 

DOE is considering with its other rulemakings. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 

at p. 101) 
183

DOE considers the cumulative regulatory burden on manufacturers as part of its 

statutory criteria to justify any energy conservation standard—the economic impact on 

manufacturers and consumers (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)). DOE considers the 

cumulative regulatory burden in the qualitative part of its MIA analysis, though it 

attempts to quantify the cumulative regulatory burden whenever possible. In the MIA, 

DOE also modeled the impacts of amended energy conservation standards on residential 

clothes washer manufacturers from base year to the end of the analysis period (2011–

2044). DOE used the most current information that is publicly available in many of its 

estimates and analyses, inputs that take the current economic downturn into 

consideration. For example, DOE used financial parameters like standard R&D to model 

the cash-flow impacts on the industry. To calculate the estimates of the financial 

parameters used in the GRIMs, DOE examined the latest six years of SEC 10-K data. 

These estimates were meant to reflect the parameters that are representative of each 

industry over the long-term and are not specifically attributable to current economic 

conditions. 

As in other rulemakings, DOE used AHAM data for historical shipments. That 

data reflects the economic downturn for residential products including clothes washers. 

DOE also considers standards-case impacts with respect to the base case as part of the 

NIA (see section IV.G.2).
184

b. Manufacturer Tax Credits

DOE requested input on any “market pull” programs, such as manufacturer tax

credits, that promote the adoption of more efficient residential clothes washers.

ASAP stated that DOE should find an effective way to address the effects of 

manufacturer tax incentives on conversion costs and the production credits available 

under current law for the production of high efficiency machines. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 7 at p. 83) The Joint Comment stated that DOE must fully account for the 

effects of Federal production tax credits in the MIA. Federal production tax credits for 

manufacturers of high efficiency appliances, including residential clothes washers, were 

first enacted in 2005 and then extended and expanded in 2008. The Joint Comment 

further stated that production tax credits provided manufacturers with a substantial 

incentive to continue to increase production of efficient front-loaders and top-loaders 

through 2010. According to the Joint Comment, these tax credits should substantially offset the conversion capital requirements and product conversion expenses of meeting 

higher standards that are key inputs to the MIA. (Joint Comment, No. 15 at p. 7) 

Earthjustice commented that it would seem inconsistent to consider the tax credits for 

purposes of the MIA, and not to also consider that the tax credits may have an impact on 

the price of the product. (Earthjustice, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 83) SCE 

questioned whether DOE captures any positive manufacturer impacts due to the standards 

rulemaking. (SCE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 166) 
185

DOE considers all relevant manufacturer impacts, both positive and negative. For 

example, DOE’s analysis includes the effects of any manufacturer production tax credits 

that may benefit certain manufacturers. ASAP and the Joint Comment above refer to tax 

credits that applied to residential clothes washers. However, these tax credits expired in 

2010. Because 2011 is the base year to which industry cash flows are discounted on this 

rulemaking, any Federal production tax credits received by the industry fall outside of the 

analysis period and are not considered in the INPV analysis. While there are tax credits in 

proposed legislation, DOE is not aware of any existing Federal production tax credits that 

would substantially offset the required conversion costs for manufacturers. Federal 

production tax credits and other market pull programs such as ENERGY STAR and the 

CEE Tiers have helped spur the development and acceptance of more efficient products 

which DOE has accounted for in the market distribution of current products in the base 

case. However, such tax credits and other market pull programs would not substantially 

defray the capital conversion costs required if all products were required to meet the 

given efficiency. 

c. Manufacturer Subgroups

DOE requested comment on appropriate manufacturer subgroups, if any, that 

DOE should consider in its manufacturer subgroup analysis for residential clothes 

washers. ALS suggested that low-volume manufacturers with less than 5 percent market 

share, including itself, be considered a manufacturer subgroup. (ALS, No. 13 at p. 12) 

ALS also stated that it is a highly leveraged small company that doesn't have the 

resources that the three major residential clothes washer manufacturers do. (ALS, Public 
186

Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 165) AHAM stated that smaller niche manufacturers 

should be considered as a manufacturer subgroup. AHAM commented that these 

manufacturers often have less access to the newer technologies, and, in this economic 

climate, have fewer resources available for research and development of products. 

(AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 163) Whirlpool stated that it is unaware 

of any manufacturer subgroups that would be impacted differently from other 

manufacturers under this rulemaking. (Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 10) 

In the commercial clothes washers (CCW) final rule, DOE described the 

disproportionate impacts on the Low Volume Manufacturer (LVM) in the NOPR and 

TSD. DOE considered this manufacturer to be low-volume because its annual shipments 

in the combined residential and CCW market were significantly lower than those of its 

larger competitors. However, unlike its larger rivals, most of the LVM’s unit shipments 

were in the CCW market, where the LVM had significant market share. Historically, this 

company derived 22 percent of its total revenue from the sale of front- and top-loading 

clothes washers and 87 percent of that revenue was from the commercial market. As a 

result, DOE believed that the LVM could be affected disproportionately by any 

rulemaking concerning CCWs compared to its competitors, for whom CCWs represent 

less than 2 percent of total clothes washer sales. 75 FR 1122, 1137 (Jan. 8, 2010). 

However, DOE does not believe that a Low Volume subgroup is warranted for residential 

clothes washers because the CCW LVM has a small presence in the residential clothes 

washer market and residential clothes washers represent a small portion of overall clothes 

washer sales and a smaller portion of total revenue. DOE also notes that ALS, AHAM, 
187

and many other manufacturers signed the Joint Petition that included residential clothes 

washer standards identical to those in today’s direct final rule. DOE also describes the 

potential impacts on the small business manufacturer it identified in section VI.B but 

does not report impacts on any other subgroups of manufacturers.

d. Miscellaneous

ASAP asked whether and how overseas manufacturers are engaged in the 

manufacturer interview process. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 108) 

DOE invited as many domestic and international clothes washer manufacturers 

that sell products in the U.S. as it could identify to participate in the rulemaking process. 

DOE considered inputs from and interviewed the two international manufacturers that

responded to its requests for participation. DOE notes that one of these manufacturers has 

domestic production.

4. Manufacturer Interviews

DOE interviewed manufacturers representing more than 80 percent of residential 

clothes washer sales. These interviews were in addition to those DOE conducted as part 

of the engineering analysis. DOE used these interviews to tailor the GRIM to incorporate 

unique financial characteristics of the industry. All interviews provided information that 

DOE used to evaluate the impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on 

manufacturer cash flows, manufacturing capacities, and employment levels. See appendix 
188

12-A of the direct final rule TSD for additional information on the MIA interviews. The 

following sections describe the most significant issues identified by manufacturers. 

a. Potentially Large Conversion Costs 

Manufacturers indicated that they were greatly concerned about the potential for 

this rulemaking to require significant product and capital conversion costs. Introducing 

new residential clothes washer platforms involves very large upfront costs. These capital 

and product development costs can be justified because a basic platform typically 

undergoes incremental changes over a number design cycles and the initial investment 

can be at least partially spread over all these shipments. Many of the existing residential 

clothes washer platforms have some designs options available that would necessitate only

these incremental types of changes. Substantially higher efficiencies, however, could 

potentially necessitate a drum or cabinet capacity change. In this case, rather than 

requiring alteration of the current platform, the required changes would likely require

design of a completely new platform. A new platform would require replacing most 

production equipment at a very large capital cost. Manufacturers also indicated that these 

initial costs for a new basic platform could result in a substantial shift in employment. 

Some manufacturers were also concerned that devoting resources to efficiency 

improvements could hurt their products in the market because these efforts could come at 

the expense of other features. 
189

b. Product Classes

Manufacturers were divided on the need to retain top-loading and front-loading 

standard-size product classes. In general, manufacturers who produce top-loading clothes 

washers favored retaining the two distinct product classes. Manufacturers who produce

only front-loading clothes washers were less concerned with maintaining the method of 

access as a product class distinction.

While all manufacturers agreed front-loading clothes washers are an important 

product offering, many manufacturers also stated that top-loading clothes washers are an 

important option for consumers because they have lower cycle times, lower price points, 

lower installation costs because they do not require a pedestal, are easier to load, are 

easier to add garments mid-cycle, and have less vibration. Some manufacturers in favor 

of maintaining the separate product classes also stated that eliminating top-loading 

clothes washers would harm lower-income customers who typically purchase baseline 

clothes washers. In addition, because front-loading clothes washers are mature in the 

marketplace, consumers are aware of the benefits of top-loading clothes washers, high 

efficiency top-loading products, and front-loading clothes washers and have the ability to 

choose higher efficiency products in either configuration. 

c. Wash Performance 

Manufacturers were concerned that efficiency gains over time have limited the 

potential to improve efficiency without negatively impacting wash performance (and the 

consumer). Many manufacturers were concerned that a test procedure that did not take a 
190

minimum wash performance into consideration, coupled with a more stringent energy 

conservation standard, could force manufacturers to limit water to a level that would 

harm consumers. For example, over-sudsing could be more commonplace. Also, water 

levels could be reduced to the point where cold water would no longer sufficiently clean 

clothes. Either one of these issues would result in lost energy savings as consumers either 

rewashed clothes or no longer selected cold water wash cycles. Consequently, many 

manufacturers supported adding a performance metric to the test procedure to ensure that 

consumers would genuinely benefit from improved efficiency.

d. Tub Capacity Measurement

Many manufacturers mentioned that different companies use inconsistent 

approaches in measuring tub capacity. While manufacturers offered slightly different 

suggestions for how to measure capacity, most were supportive of eliminating the 

ambiguity. Manufacturers hoped this issue would be resolved before the implementation 

of these amended energy conservation standards because the modified energy factor and 

water factor calculations are dependent on measured capacity.

e. ENERGY STAR 

Manufacturers stated that the ENERGY STAR program is also a part of their 

overall energy strategy. To be competitive, many manufacturers must take ENERGY 

STAR levels into consideration when designing new clothes washers. One manufacturer 

mentioned that the costs associated with designing new products to meet ENERGY 

STAR levels were not reflected in DOE’s incremental cost tables.
191

Another manufacturer mentioned that ENERGY STAR is an important 

purchasing decision, especially in the front-loading clothes washer market. The 

manufacturer expressed concern that standards that are too aggressive could put the 

future of the ENERGY STAR program for residential clothes washers in jeopardy. In 

turn, that could impact local rebates that enable manufacturers to offer products that meet 

the minimum efficiency standards.

J.

DOE considers employment impacts in the domestic economy as one factor in 

selecting a proposed standard. Employment impacts consist ofinclude direct and indirect 

impacts. Direct employment impacts are any changes in the number of employees of 

manufacturers of the appliance products that are the subject of this rulemakingto 

standards, their suppliers, and related service firms. The MIA addresses those impacts.

Indirect employment impacts are changes in national employment that occur due to the 

shift in expenditures and capital investment caused by the purchase and operation of 

more efficient appliances. The MIA addresses the direct employment impacts in

manufacturing of clothes washers as discussed in section . The employment impact 

analysis addresses the indirect employment impacts.

Employment Impact Analysis

Indirect employment impacts from standards consist of the net jobs created or eliminated 

in the national economy, other than in the manufacturing sector being regulated, caused 

bydue to: (1) reduced spending by end users on energy; (2) reduced spending on new 
192

energy supply by the utility industry; (3) increased consumer spending on the purchase of 

new products to which the new standards apply; and (4) the effects of those three factors 

throughout the economy. DOE expects the net monetary savings from standards to be 

redirected to other forms of economic activity. DOE also expects those shifts in spending 

and economic activity to affect the demand for labor in the short term, as explained 

below.

One method for assessing the possible effects on the demand for labor of such shifts in 

economic activity is to compare sector employment statistics developed by the Labor 

Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).35 The BLS regularly publishes its 

estimates of the number of jobs per million dollars of economic activity in different 

sectors of the economy, as well as the jobs created elsewhere in the economy by this 

same economic activity. Data from BLS indicate that expenditures in the utility sector 

generally create fewer jobs (both directly and indirectly) than expenditures in other 

sectors of the economy.36 There are many reasons for these differences, including wage 

differences and the fact that the utility sector is more capital-intensive and less laborintensive than other sectors. 37

Energy conservation standards have the effect of reducing consumer utility bills. 

Because reduced consumer expenditures for energy likely lead to increased expenditures 

 35 Data on industry employment, hours, labor compensation, value of production, and the implicit price 

deflator for output for these industries are available upon request by calling the Division of Industry 

Productivity Studies (202-691-5618) or by sending a request by e-mail to dipsweb@bls.gov. Available at: 

www.bls.gov/news.release/prin1.nr0.htm. 36 See Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional InputOutput Modeling System (RIMS II). Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992. 37 See Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional InputOutput Modeling System (RIMS II). Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992.
193

in other sectors of the economy, the general effect of efficiency standards is to shift 

economic activity from a less labor-intensive sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more laborintensive sectors (e.g., the retail and service sectors). Thus, based on the BLS data alone, 

DOE believes net national employment willmay increase because of shifts in economic 

activity resulting from amended standards for clothes washers.

For the standard levels considered in today’s direct final rule, DOE estimated 

indirect national employment impacts using an input/output model of the U.S. economy 

called Impact of Sector Energy Technologies (ImSET). ImSET is a spreadsheet model of 

the U.S. economy that focuses on 187 sectors most relevant to industrial, commercial, 

and residential building energy use.38

 38 J. M. Roop, M. J. Scott, and R. W. Schultz, ImSET 3.1: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies, PNNL18412, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 2009. Available at: 

version 3.1.1 (ImSET). ImSET is a special-purpose 

version of the “U.S. Benchmark National Input-Output” (I–O) model, which was 

designed to estimate the national employment and income effects of energy-saving 

technologies. The ImSET software includes a computer-based I–O model having 

structural coefficients that characterize economic flows among the 187 sectors. ImSET’s 

national economic I–O structure is based on a 2002 U.S. benchmark table, specially 

aggregated to the 187 sectors. DOE estimated changes in expenditures using the NIA 

spreadsheet. Using ImSET, DOE estimated the net national, indirect employment impacts 

by sector of potential amended efficiency standards for clothes washers. most relevant to 

industrial, commercial, and residential building energy use. DOE notes that ImSET is not 

a general equilibrium forecasting model. Given the relatively small change to 

expenditures due to energy conservation standards and the resulting small changes to 

www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-18412.pdf
194

employment, however, DOE believes that the size of any forecast error caused by using 

ImSET will be small.

For more details on the employment impact analysis, see chapter 13 of the direct 

final rule TSD.

K.

The utility impact analysis estimates several important effects on the utility 

industry of the adoption of new or amended standards. For this analysis, DOE used the 

NEMS-BT model to generate forecasts of electricity consumption, electricity generation 

by plant type, and electric generating capacity by plant type, that would result from each 

TSL. DOE obtained the energy savings inputs associated with efficiency improvements 

to considered products from the NIA. DOE conducts the utility impact analysis as a 

scenario that departs from the latest 

Utility Impact Analysis

AEO Reference case. In the analysis for today’s rule, 

the estimated impacts of standards are the differences between values forecasted by 

NEMS-BT and the values in the AEO2010 Reference case. 

As part of the utility impact analysis, DOE used NEMS-BT to assess the impacts 

on electricity prices of the reduced need for new electric power plants and infrastructure 

projected to result from the considered standards. In NEMS-BT, changes in power 

generation infrastructure affect utility revenue requirements, which in turn affect 

electricity prices. DOE estimated the change in electricity prices projected to result over 

Comment [A12]: Changes recommended by 

OIRA.
195

time from each TSL. For further discussion, see section IV.G.5. For more details on the 

utility impact analysis, see chapter 14 of the direct final rule TSD.

In the framework document, DOE requested comment on the utility impact 

analysis, and in response received several comments from efficiency advocates and 

utilities. The California Utilities recommended that DOE evaluate how the standard will 

affect water and wastewater utilities, including their water infrastructure requirements. 

(California Utilities, No. 19 at p. 6) The Joint Comment stated that a new standard has the 

potential to have a substantial impact on the capital and operating cost profiles of water 

and wastewater utilities over the thirty-year period of analysis. (Joint Comment, No. 15 at 

p. 8)

DOE acknowledges that clothes washer standards could affect water and 

wastewater utilities. However, to analyze water and wastewater utility impacts, an 

analytical tool comparable to NEMS would be needed to account properly for the 

nationwide effects of standards on water and wastewater delivery and treatment. At this 

time, DOE does not have such a tool or access to any other means to quantify the water 

and wastewater utility impacts from potential clothes washer standards.

L.

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI), DOE has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) of the 

impacts of the standards for residential clothes washers in today’s direct final rule, which 

Environmental Assessment
196

it has included as chapter 15 of the direct final rule TSD. At the conclusion of the 110-

day comment period, DOE will determine whether issuance of a Finding of no 

Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. If DOE issues a FONSI, it will be published 

separately in the Federal Register. 

L.

In the EAemissions analysis, DOE estimated the reduction in power sector 

emissions of CO2, NOX, and Hg usingfrom amended energy conservation standards for

clothes washers. DOE used the NEMS–BT computer model. In the EA, NEMS–BT, 

which is run similarly to the 

Emissions Analysis

AEO NEMS, except that clothes washer energy use is 

reduced by the amount of energy saved (by fuel type) due to each TSL. The inputs of 

national energy savings come from the NIA spreadsheet model, while the output is the 

forecasted physical emissions. The net benefit of today’s direct final ruleeach TSL is the 

difference between the forecasted emissions estimated by NEMS–BT at each TSL and 

the AEO2010 Reference Case. NEMS–BT tracks CO2 emissions using a detailed module 

that provides results with broad coverage of all sectors and inclusion of interactive 

effects. For today’s rule, DOE used the AEO2010 and the most current version of 

NEMS-BT based on AEO2010, which incorporated projected effects of all emissions 

regulations promulgated as of Jan. 31, 2010.

SO2 emissions from affected electric generating units (EGUs) are subject to 

nationwide and regional emissions cap and trading programs, and DOE has preliminarily 

determined that these programs create uncertainty about the standards’ impact of energy 
197

conservation standards on SO2 emissions. Title IV of the Clean Air Act sets an annual 

emissions cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 contiguous States and the District of 

Columbia (D.C.). SO2 emissions from 28 eastern States and D.C. are also limited under 

the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR, 70 Fed. Reg. 25162 (May 12, 2005)), which created 

an allowance-based trading program that would gradually replaced the Title IV program 

in those States and D.C. Although CAIR has beenwas remanded to EPA by the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit), see North Carolina 

v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008), it remainsremained in effect temporarily, 

consistent with the D.C. Circuit’s earlier opinion in North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 

(D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 2July 6, 2010, EPA issued the Transport Rule proposal, a 

replacement for CAIR, which would limit emissions from EGUs in 32 states, and may 

allow some amount of interstate trading.. 75 FR 45210 (Aug. 2, 2010). On July 6, 2011 

EPA issued the final transport rule, entitleda replacement for CAIR, the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule. 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). (See http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/, 

on July 6, 2011. [INSERT CITE]39). On December 30, 2011, however, the D.C. Circuit 

stayed the new rules while a panel of judges reviews them, and told EPA to continue 

enforcing CAIR (see EME Homer City Generation v. EPA, No. 11-1302, Order at *2 

(D.C. Cir. Dec. 30, 2011)). The AEO2010 NEMS-BT used for today’s direct final rule 

assumes the implementation of CAIR.

The attainment of emissions caps typically is flexible among EGUs and is 

enforced through the use of emissions allowances and tradable permits. Under existing 

 39 DOE notes that future iterations of the NEMS-BT model will incorporate any changes necessitated by 

issuance of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. 
198

EPA regulations, any excess SO2 emissions allowances resulting from the lower 

electricity demand caused by the imposition of an efficiency standard could be used to 

permit offsetting increases in SO2 emissions by any regulated EGU. However, if the 

standard resulted in a permanent increase in the quantity of unused emissions allowances, 

there would be an overall reduction in SO2 emissions from the standards. While there 

remains some uncertainty about the ultimate effects of efficiency standards on SO2

emissions covered by the existing cap-and-trade system, the NEMS-BT modeling system 

that DOE uses to forecast emissions reductions currently indicates that no physical 

reductions in power sector emissions would occur for SO2. 

A cap on NOx emissions, affecting electric generating units in As discussed 

above, the CAIR region, means thatAEO2010 NEMS-BT used for today’s NOPR 

assumes the clothes washer standards may have little or no physical effectimplementation 

of CAIR, which established a cap on theseNOx emissions in the 28 eastern States and the 

D.C. District of Columbia. With CAIR in effect, the energy conservation standards for 

clothes washers are expected to have little or no physical effect on NOx emissions in 

those States covered by CAIR. Today’s standards will, however, , for the same reasons 

that they may have little effect on SO2 emissions. However, the standards would be 

expected to reduce NOx emissions in thosethe 22 States not affected by the CAIR. As a 

resultFor these 22 States, DOE used the NEMS–-BT to forecast emissionestimate NOx

emissions reductions from the standards that are considered in today’s direct final rule.
199

Similar to emissions of SO2 and NOX, future emissions of Hg would have been 

subject to emissions caps. In May 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule 

(CAMR). 70 Fed. Reg. 28606 (May 18, 2005). CAMR would have permanently capped 

emissions of mercury for new and existing coal-fired power plants in all States by 2010. 

However, on February 8, 2008, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in New Jersey v. 

Environmental Protection Agency, in which it vacated CAMR. 517 F.3d 574 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). EPA has decided to develop emissions standards for power plants under the Clean 

Air Act (Section 112), consistent with the D.C. Circuit’s opinion on CAMR. See . 

Pending EPA's forthcoming revisions to the rule, DOE is excluding CAMR from its 

environmental analysis. In the absence of CAMR, a DOE standard likely would reduce 

Hg emissions, and DOE used NEMS-BT to estimate those emission reductions. However, 

DOE continues to review the impact of rules that reduce energy consumption on Hg 

emissions, and may revise its assessment of Hg emission reductions in future 

rulemakings.

On December 21, 2011, EPA announced national emissions standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs) for mercury and certain other pollutants emitted 

from coal and oil-fired EGUs. 76 FR 24976. The NESHAPs do not include emissions 

caps and, as such, DOE’s energy conservation standards would likely reduce Hg 

emissions. For the emissions analysis for this rulemaking, DOE estimated mercury 

emissions reductions using NEMS-BT based on AEO2010, which does not incorporate 
200

the NESHAPs. DOE expects that future versions of the NEMS-BT model will reflect the 

implementation of the NESHAPs.

M.

As part of the development of this direct final rule, DOE considered the estimated 

monetary benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO2 and NOX that are 

expected to result from each of the considered TSLs. In order to make this calculation 

similar to the calculation of the NPV of consumer benefit, DOE considered the reduced 

emissions expected to result over the lifetime of products shipped in the forecast period 

for each TSL. This section summarizes the basis for the monetary values used for each of 

these emissions and presents the benefits estimates considered.

Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts

For today’s direct final rule, DOE is relying on a set of values for the social cost 

of carbon (SCC) that was developed by an interagency process. A summary of the basis 

for these values is provided below, and a more detailed description of the methodologies 

used is provided in appendix 15-A of the direct final rule TSD.

1. Social Cost of Carbon

Under Executive Order 12866, agencies must, to the extent permitted by law, 

“assess both the costs and the benefits of the intended regulation and, recognizing that 

some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon 

a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs.” The 

purpose of the SCC estimates presented here is to allow agencies to incorporate the 
201

monetized social benefits of reducing CO2 emissions into cost-benefit analyses of 

regulatory actions that have small, or “marginal,” impacts on cumulative global 

emissions. The estimates are presented with an acknowledgement of the many 

uncertainties involved and with a clear understanding that they should be updated over 

time to reflect increasing knowledge of the science and economics of climate impacts.

As part of the interagency process that developed these SCC estimates, technical 

experts from numerous agencies met on a regular basis to consider public comments, 

explore the technical literature in relevant fields, and discuss key model inputs and 

assumptions. The main objective of this process was to develop a range of SCC values 

using a defensible set of input assumptions grounded in the existing scientific and 

economic literatures. In this way, key uncertainties and model differences transparently 

and consistently inform the range of SCC estimates used in the rulemaking process.

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

The SCC is an estimate of the monetized damages associated with an incremental 

increase in carbon emissions in a given year. It is intended to include (but is not limited 

to) changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property damages from 

increased flood risk, and the value of ecosystem services. Estimates of the SCC are 

provided in dollars per metric ton of carbon dioxide.

When attempting to assess the incremental economic impacts of carbon dioxide 

emissions, the analyst faces a number of serious challenges. A recent report from the 
202

National Research Council40 points out that any assessment will suffer from uncertainty, 

speculation, and lack of information about (1) future emissions of greenhouse gases, (2) 

the effects of past and future emissions on the climate system, (3) the impact of changes 

in climate on the physical and biological environment, and (4) the translation of these 

environmental impacts into economic damages. As a result, any effort to quantify and 

monetize the harms associated with climate change will raise serious questions of 

science, economics, and ethics and should be viewed as provisional. 

Despite the serious limits of both quantification and monetization, SCC estimates 

can be useful in estimating the social benefits of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. 

Consistent with the directive quoted above, the purpose of the SCC estimates presented 

here is to make it possible for agencies to incorporate the social benefits from reducing 

carbon dioxide emissions into cost-benefit analyses of regulatory actions that have small, 

or “marginal,” impacts on cumulative global emissions. Most Federal regulatory actions 

can be expected to have marginal impacts on global emissions.

For such policies, the agency can estimate the benefits from reduced (or costs 

from increased) emissions in any future year by multiplying the change in emissions in 

that year by the SCC value appropriate for that year. The net present value of the benefits 

can then be calculated by multiplying each of these future benefits by an appropriate 

discount factor and summing across all affected years. This approach assumes that the 

marginal damages from increased emissions are constant for small departures from the 

 40 National Research Council. Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and 

Use. National Academies Press: Washington, DC. 2009.
203

baseline emissions path, an approximation that is reasonable for policies that have effects 

on emissions that are small relative to cumulative global carbon dioxide emissions. For 

policies that have a large (non-marginal) impact on global cumulative emissions, there is 

a separate question of whether the SCC is an appropriate tool for calculating the benefits 

of reduced emissions. This concern is not applicable to this notice, and DOE does not 

attempt to answer that question here.

At the time of the preparation of this notice, the most recent interagency estimates 

of the potential global benefits resulting from reduced CO2 emissions in 2010, expressed 

in 2010$, were $4.9, $22.3, $36.5, and $67.6 per metric ton avoided. For emission 

reductions that occur in later years, these values grow in real terms over time. 

Additionally, the interagency group determined that a range of values from 7 percent to 

23 percent should be used to adjust the global SCC to calculate domestic effects,41

although preference is given to consideration of the global benefits of reducing CO2

emissions. 

It is important to emphasize that the interagency process is committed to updating 

these estimates as the science and economic understanding of climate change and its 

impacts on society improves over time. Specifically, the interagency group has set a 

preliminary goal of revisiting the SCC values within 2 years or at such time as 

substantially updated models become available, and to continue to support research in 

this area. In the meantime, the interagency group will continue to explore the issues 

 41 It is recognized that this calculation for domestic values is approximate, provisional, and highly 

speculative. There is no a priori reason why domestic benefits should be a constant fraction of net global 

damages over time.
204

raised by this analysis and consider public comments as part of the ongoing interagency 

process.

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

To date, economic analyses for Federal regulations have used a wide range of 

values to estimate the benefits associated with reducing carbon dioxide emissions. In the 

final model year 2011 CAFE rule, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) used 

both a “domestic” SCC value of $2 per ton of CO2 and a “global” SCC value of $33 per 

ton of CO2 for 2007 emission reductions (in 2007$), increasing both values at 2.4 percent 

per year.42 DOT also included a sensitivity analysis at $80 per ton of CO2. See Average 

Fuel Economy Standards Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Model Year 2011, 74 FR 

14196 (March 30, 2009) (Final Rule); Final Environmental Impact Statement Corporate 

Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 2011-

2015 at 3-90 (Oct. 2008) (Available at: www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy). A domestic SCC 

value is meant to reflect the value of damages in the United States resulting from a unit 

change in carbon dioxide emissions, while a global SCC value is meant to reflect the 

value of damages worldwide.

A 2008 regulation proposed by DOT assumed a domestic SCC value of $7 per ton 

of CO2 (in 2006$) for 2011 emission reductions (with a range of $0−$14 for sensitivity 

analysis), also increasing at 2.4 percent per year. See Average Fuel Economy Standards, 

Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 2011-2015

 42 Throughout this section, references to tons of CO2 refer to metric tons.

, 73 FR 24352 (May 2, 2008) 
205

(Proposed Rule); Draft Environmental Impact Statement Corporate Average Fuel 

Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 2011-2015 at 3-58 

(June 2008) (Available at: www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy). A regulation for packaged 

terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal heat pumps finalized by DOE in October 

of 2008 used a domestic SCC range of $0 to $20 per ton CO2 for 2007 emission 

reductions (in 2007$). 73 FR 58772, 58814 (Oct. 7, 2008) In addition, EPA’s 2008 

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gases identified what it 

described as “very preliminary” SCC estimates subject to revision. See Regulating 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the Clean Air Act, 73 FR 44354 (July 30, 2008). 

EPA’s global mean values were $68 and $40 per ton CO2 for discount rates of 

approximately 2 percent and 3 percent, respectively (in 2006$ for 2007 emissions).

In 2009, an interagency process was initiated to offer a preliminary assessment of 

how best to quantify the benefits from reducing carbon dioxide emissions. To ensure 

consistency in how benefits are evaluated across agencies, the Administration sought to 

develop a transparent and defensible method, specifically designed for the rulemaking 

process, to quantify avoided climate change damages from reduced CO2 emissions. The 

interagency group did not undertake any original analysis. Instead, it combined SCC 

estimates from the existing literature to use as interim values until a more comprehensive 

analysis could be conducted. The outcome of the preliminary assessment by the 

interagency group was a set of five interim values: global SCC estimates for 2007 (in 

2006 dollars) of $55, $33, $19, $10, and $5 per ton of CO2. These interim values 

represent the first sustained interagency effort within the U.S. government to develop an 
206

SCC for use in regulatory analysis. The results of this preliminary effort were presented 

in several proposed and final rules and were offered for public comment in connection 

with proposed rules, including the joint EPA-DOT fuel economy and CO2 tailpipe 

emission proposed rules.

c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions 

Since the release of the interim values, the interagency group reconvened on a 

regular basis to generate improved SCC estimates, which were used in this direct final 

rule. Specifically, the group considered public comments and further explored the 

technical literature in relevant fields. The interagency group relied on three integrated 

assessment models (IAMs) commonly used to estimate the SCC: the FUND, DICE, and 

PAGE models.43 These models are frequently cited in the peer-reviewed literature and 

were used in the last assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Each 

model was given equal weight in the SCC values that were developed. 

Each model takes a slightly different approach to model how changes in 

emissions result in changes in economic damages. A key objective of the interagency 

process was to enable a consistent exploration of the three models while respecting the 

different approaches to quantifying damages taken by the key modelers in the field. An 

extensive review of the literature was conducted to select three sets of input parameters 

for these models: climate sensitivity, socio-economic and emissions trajectories, and 

discount rates. A probability distribution for climate sensitivity was specified as an input 

into all three models. In addition, the interagency group used a range of scenarios for the 

 43 The models are described in appendix 15-A of the direct final rule TSD.
207

socio-economic parameters and a range of values for the discount rate. All other model 

features were left unchanged, relying on the model developers’ best estimates and 

judgments.

The interagency group selected four SCC values for use in regulatory analyses. 

Three values are based on the average SCC from three integrated assessment models, at 

discount rates of 2.5, 3, and 5 percent. The fourth value, which represents the 95th

percentile SCC estimate across all three models at a 3-percent discount rate, is included 

to represent higher-than-expected impacts from temperature change further out in the 

tails of the SCC distribution.

Table IV-21 Social Cost of CO2, 2010–2050 (in 2007 dollars per metric ton)

Discount Rate 

5% 3% 2.5% 3%

Avg Avg Avg 95th

2010 4.7 21.4 35.1 64.9

2015 5.7 23.8 38.4 72.8

2020 6.8 26.3 41.7 80.7

2025 8.2 29.6 45.9 90.4

2030 9.7 32.8 50.0 100.0

2035 11.2 36.0 54.2 109.7

2040 12.7 39.2 58.4 119.3

2045 14.2 42.1 61.7 127.8

2050 15.7 44.9 65.0 136.2

It is important to recognize that a number of key uncertainties remain, and that 

current SCC estimates should be treated as provisional and revisable since they will 

evolve with improved scientific and economic understanding. The interagency group also 
208

recognizes that the existing models are imperfect and incomplete. The National Research 

Council report mentioned above points out that there is tension between the goal of 

producing quantified estimates of the economic damages from an incremental ton of 

carbon and the limits of existing efforts to model these effects. There are a number of 

concerns and problems that should be addressed by the research community, including 

research programs housed in many of the agencies participating in the interagency 

process to estimate the SCC.

DOE recognizes the uncertainties embedded in the estimates of the SCC used for 

cost-benefit analyses. As such, DOE and others in the U.S. Government intend to 

periodically review and reconsider those estimates to reflect increasing knowledge of the 

science and economics of climate impacts, as well as improvements in modeling. In this 

context, statements recognizing the limitations of the analysis and calling for further 

research take on exceptional significance.

In summary, in considering the potential global benefits resulting from reduced 

CO2 emissions, DOE used the most recent values identified by the interagency process, 

adjusted to 2010$ using the GDP price deflator. For each of the four cases specified, the 

values used for emissions in 2010 were $4.9, $22.3, $36.5, and $67.6 per metric ton 

avoided (values expressed in 2010$).44

 44 Table A1 presents SCC values through 2050. For DOE’s calculation, it derived values after 2050 using 

the 3-percent per year escalation rate used by the interagency group.

To monetize the CO2 emissions reductions 

expected to result from amended standards for clothes washers, DOE used the values 

identified in Table A1 of the “Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis 
209

Under Executive Order 12866,” which is reprinted in appendix 16-A of the direct final 

rule TSD, appropriately adjusted to 2010$. To calculate a present value of the stream of 

monetary values, DOE discounted the values in each of the four cases using the specific 

discount rate that had been used to obtain the SCC values in each case.

Commenting on the framework document, Whirlpool stated that CO2 emissions 

should not be monetized because the market value cannot be readily determined, the 

impact is negligible, and it is already included in energy savings. (Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 

6) DOE acknowledges that the market value of future CO2 emissions reductions is 

uncertain, and for this reason it uses a wide range of potential values, as described above. 

The impact of revised standards clothes washers on future CO2 emissions, described in 

section V.B.6 of this notice, is not negligible. In addition, the value of CO2 emissions 

reductions is not included in energy cost savings because the energy prices that DOE 

used to calculate those savings do not include any taxes or other charges to account for 

the CO2 emissions associated with the use of electricity or natural gas by residential 

clothes washers.

2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions

DOE investigated the potential monetary benefit of reduced NOX emissions from 

the TSLs it considered. As noted above, amended energy conservation standards would 

reduce NOX emissions in those 22 States that are not affected by the CAIR, in addition to 

the reduction in site NOX emissions nationwide. DOE estimated the monetized value of 

NOX emissions reductions resulting from each of the TSLs considered for today’s direct 
210

final rule based on environmental damage estimates from the literature. Available 

estimates suggest a very wide range of monetary values, ranging from $370 per ton to 

$3,800 per ton of NOX from stationary sources, measured in 2001$ (equivalent to a range 

of $450 to $4,623 per ton in 2010$).45 In accordance with OMB guidance, DOE 

conducted two calculations of the monetary benefits derived using each of the economic 

values used for NOX, one using a real discount rate of 3 percent and another using a real 

discount rate of 7 percent.46

DOE is aware of multiple agency efforts to determine the appropriate range of 

values used in evaluating the potential economic benefits of reduced Hg emissions. DOE 

has decided to await further guidance regarding consistent valuation and reporting of Hg 

emissions before it once again monetizes Hg in its rulemakings.

V. Analytical Results

The following section addresses the results from DOE’s analyses with respect to 

potential energy conservation standards for residential clothes washers of this 

rulemaking. It addresses the TSLs examined by DOE, the projected impacts of each of 

these levels if adopted as energy conservation standards for clothes washers, and the 

standards levels that DOE sets forth in today’s direct final rule. Additional details 

regarding DOE’s analyses are contained in the publicly available direct final rule TSD 

supporting this notice.

 45 For additional information, refer to U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs. 2006 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and 

Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities. 2006. Washington, DC. 46 OMB, Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis (Sept. 17, 2003).
211

A.

DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of a number of TSLs for residential 

clothes washers, the products that are the subject of today’s direct final rule. Each TSL 

DOE analyzed is described below. DOE attempted to limit the number of TSLs 

considered for the final rule by excluding efficiency levels that do not exhibit 

significantly different economic and/or engineering characteristics from the efficiency 

levels already selected as a TSL. Although DOE presents the results for only those 

efficiency levels in TSL combinations in today’s final rule, DOE presents the results for 

all efficiency levels that it analyzed in the final rule TSD.

Trial Standard Levels

Table V-1 presents the TSLs and the corresponding product class efficiency levels 

for clothes washers. 

For standard-size products, TSL 1 consists of the efficiency levels that are two 

levels above the baseline levels (which are considered Efficiency Level 0). TSL 2 

represents an intermediary point between the efficiency levels chosen for TSL 1 and the 

efficiency levels recommended in the Joint Petition. TSL 3 consists of the efficiency 

levels recommended in the Joint Petition. In the case of TSL 3, for top-loading standard 

clothes washers, one set of values would apply starting in 2015, and another set would 

apply starting in 2018. TSL 4 consists of the efficiency levels that are one level below the 

max-tech efficiency levels. TSL 5 consists of the max-tech efficiency levels.
212

For top-loading compacts, TSL 1, TSL 2 and the 2015 level of TSL 3 consists of

Efficiency Level 1, and TSL 4 and TSL 5 and the 2018 level of TSL 3 consist of 

Efficiency Level 2. For front-loading compacts, all TSLs consist of Efficiency Level 1.

Table V-1 Trial Standard Levels for Residential Clothes Washers

Top-Loading Standard Front-Loading Standard 

TSL Efficiency 

Level IMEF Standby Efficiency Level IMEF Standby

ft3/kWh/cycle W ft3/kWh/cycle W

1 2 1.29 0.00 2 1.41 0.08

2 5 1.37 0.08 4 1.66 0.08

3* 2 1.29 0.00 5 1.84 0.08 3** 6 1.57 0.08

4 7 1.83 0.08 7 2.20 0.08

5 8 2.04 0.08 8 2.46 0.08

Top-Loading Compact Front-Loading Compact

1 1 0.86 0.00 1 1.13 0.08

2 1 0.86 0.00 1 1.13 0.08

3* 1 0.86 0.00 1 1.13 0.08 3** 2 1.15 2.30

4 2 1.15 2.30 1 1.13 0.08

5 2 1.15 2.30 1 1.13 0.08

* January 1, 2015 levels

** January 1, 2018 levels

B.

1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers

Economic Justification and Energy Savings

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period

Consumers affected by new or amended standards usually experience higher 

purchase prices and lower operating costs. Generally, the impacts on individual 

consumers are best captured by changes in life-cycle cost (LCC) and by the payback 

period (PBP). Therefore, DOE calculated the LCC and PBP analyses for the potential 

standard levels considered in this rulemaking. DOE’s LCC and PBP analyses provided 
213

key outputs for each TSL, which are reported by clothes washer product class in Table

V-2 through Table V-5. Each table includes the average total LCC and the average LCC 

savings, as well as the fraction of product consumers for which the LCC will decrease 

(net benefit), increase (net cost), or exhibit no change (no impact) relative to the basecase forecast. The last column in the tables contains the median PBP for the consumer 

purchasing a design that complies with the TSL. DOE presents the median PBP because 

it is the most statistically robust measure of the PBP. The results for each potential 

standard level are relative to the efficiency distribution in the base case (no amended 

standards). DOE based the LCC and PBP analyses on the range of energy consumption 

under conditions of actual product use.

Table V-2 LCC and PBP Results for Top-Loading Standard Clothes Washers

TSL IMEF

Life-Cycle Cost 2010$ LCC Savings

Payback 

Period 

Installed 

Cost

years

Discounted 

Operating 

Cost

LCC

Average 

Savings 

Percent of households 

that experience

2010$

Median Net 

Cost

No 

Impact

Net 

Benefit

1 1.29 425 1,317 1,743 268 0.7 19.5 79.8 0.4

2 1.37 433 1,340 1,773 243 5.6 15.1 79.3 0.7

3* 1.29 425 1,317 1,743 268 0.7 19.5 79.8 0.4

3** 1.57 448 1,182 1,630 366 3.4 14.1 82.5 0.9

4 1.83 496 1,003 1,499 491 8.1 4.6 87.4 1.8

5 2.04 508 958 1,466 524 9.5 0.0 90.5 1.9

* January 1, 2015 levels

** January 1, 2018 levels
214

Table V-3 LCC and PBP Results for Front-Loading Standard Clothes Washers

TSL IMEF

Life-Cycle Cost 2010$ LCC Savings

Payback 

Period 

Installed 

Cost

years

Discounted 

Operating 

Cost

LCC

Average 

Savings 

Percent of households 

that experience

2010$

Median Net 

Cost

No 

Impact

Net 

Benefit

1 1.41 867 1,214 2,081 0 0.0 100.0 0.0 NA

2 1.66 874 1,088 1,961 2.2 0.1 96.0 3.9 0.9

3 1.84 888 946 1,835 37 1.5 72.4 26.1 1.3

4 2.20 938 900 1,838 35 45.1 11.6 43.3 9.2

5 2.46 964 807 1,771 102 29.6 0.0 70.4 5.2

Table V-4 LCC and PBP Results for Top-Loading Compact Clothes Washers

TSL IMEF

Life-Cycle Cost 2010$ LCC Savings

Payback 

Period 

Installed 

Cost

years

Discounted 

Operating 

Cost

LCC

Average 

Savings 

Percent of households 

that experience

2010$

Median Net 

Cost

No 

Impact

Net 

Benefit

1 0.86 426 988 1,414 159 1.5 0.0 98.5 0.5

2 0.86 426 988 1,414 159 1.5 0.0 98.5 0.5

3* 0.86 426 988 1,414 159 1.5 0.0 98.5 0.5

3** 1.15 480 781 1,261 312 12.6 0.0 87.4 2.1

4 1.15 480 781 1,261 312 12.6 0.0 87.4 2.1

5 1.15 480 781 1,261 312 12.6 0.0 87.4 2.1

* January 1, 2015 levels

** January 1, 2018 levels

Table V-5 LCC and PBP Results for Front-Loading Compact Clothes Washers

TSL IMEF

Life-Cycle Cost 2010$ LCC Savings

Payback 

Period 

Installed 

Cost

years

Discounted 

Operating 

Cost

LCC

Average 

Savings 

Percent of households 

that experience

2010$

Median Net 

Cost

No 

Impact

Net 

Benefit

1 1.13 865 694 1,559 54 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.8 

2 1.13 865 694 1,559 54 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.8 

3 1.13 865 694 1,559 54 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.8 

4 1.13 865 694 1,559 54 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.8 

5 1.13 865 694 1,559 54 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.8 
215

b. Consumer Sub-Group Analysis

As described in section IV.H, DOE determined the impact of the considered TSLs 

on low-income households and senior-only households. Table V-6 compares the average 

LCC savings at each efficiency level for the two consumer subgroups, along with the 

average LCC savings for the entire sample for each product class for clothes washers. For 

compacts, DOE also analyzed impacts on multi-family consumers, since they are most 

likely to use compact washers. In general, the average LCC savings for low-income 

households and senior-only households at the considered efficiency levels are not 

substantially different from the average for all households. Chapter 11 of the direct final 

rule TSD presents the complete LCC and PBP results for the consumer subgroups.

Table V-6 Clothes Washers: Comparison of Average LCC Savings for Consumer 

Subgroups and All Households

TSL

Top-Loading Standard Front-Loading Standard 

IMEF Senior LowIncome All IMEF Senior LowIncome All

1 1.29 163 240 268 1.41 0 0 0

2 1.37 142 203 243 1.66 1.3 2.5 2.2

3* 1.29 163 240 268 1.84 22 36 37

3** 1.57 214 319 366

4 1.83 275 437 491 2.20 6.0 39 35

5 2.04 291 466 524 2.46 38 109 102

TSL

Top-Loading Compact Front-Loading Compact

IMEF Senior LowIncome

Multifamily All IMEF Senior LowIncomeMultifamily All

1 0.86 99 150 127 159 1.13 41 57 48 54

2 0.86 99 150 127 159 1.13 41 57 48 54

3* 0.86 99 150 127 159 1.13 41 57 48 54 3** 1.15 163 275 227 312 1.13

4 1.15 163 275 227 312 1.13 41 57 48 54

5 1.15 163 275 227 312 1.13 41 57 48 54

* Refers to January 1, 2015 levels for top-loading washers.

** Refers January 1, 2018 levels for top-loading washers.
216

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback

As discussed above, EPCA provides a rebuttable presumption that an energy 

conservation standard is economically justified if the increased purchase cost for a 

product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first-year energy 

savings resulting from the standard. In calculating a rebuttable presumption payback 

period for the considered standard levels, DOE used discrete values rather than 

distributions for input values, and, as required by EPCA, based the energy use calculation 

on the DOE test procedures for residential clothes washers. As a result, DOE calculated a 

single rebuttable presumption payback value, and not a distribution of payback periods, 

for each efficiency level. Table V-7 presents the average rebuttable presumption payback 

periods for those efficiency levels where the increased purchase cost for a product that 

meets a standard at that level is less than three times the value of the first-year energy 

savings resulting from the standard.

Table V-7 Clothes Washers: Efficiency Levels Having Rebuttable PBPs Less Than 

Three Years

TSL

Top-Loading 

Standard

Front-Loading 

Standard

Top-Loading 

Compact

Front-Loading 

Compact

IMEF PBP years IMEF PBP years IMEF PBP years IMEF PBP 

1

years

1.29 0.7 1.41 0.3 0.86 0.30 1.13 0.7

2 1.37 0.8 1.66 0.7 0.86 0.30 1.13 0.7

3* 1.29 0.7 1.84 0.5 0.86 0.30 1.13 0.7

3** 1.57 1.7 1.15 1.31 1.13 0.7

4 1.83 2.1 2.20 1.1 1.15 1.31 1.13 0.7

5 2.04 2.2 2.46 1.2 1.15 1.31 1.13 0.7

* Refers to January 1, 2015 levels for top-loading washers.

** Refers to January 1, 2018 levels for top-loading washers.
217

While DOE examined the rebuttable-presumption criterion, it considered whether 

the standard levels considered for today’s rule are economically justified through a more 

detailed analysis of the economic impacts of those levels pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of that analysis serve as the basis for DOE to evaluate the 

economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the 

results of any preliminary determination of economic justification).

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers

DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of amended energy conservation 

standards on manufacturers of residential clothes washers. The section below describes 

the expected impacts on manufacturers at each TSL. Chapter 12 of the direct final rule 

TSD explains the analysis in further detail.

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results

The tables below depict the financial impacts on manufacturers (represented by 

changes in INPV) and the conversion costs DOE estimates manufacturers would incur at 

each TSL. Each set of results below shows INPV impacts under a different set of 

assumptions: the first table reflects the lower (least severe) bound of impacts and the third

table represents the upper (most severe) bound. As described in section IV.I, DOE 

modeled three different scenarios using different markup assumptions to evaluate this 

range of cash-flow impacts on the industry. These assumptions correspond to the bounds 

of a range of market responses that DOE anticipates could occur in the standards case. 
218

Each scenario results in a unique set of cash flows and corresponding industry value at 

each TSL.

The INPV results refer to the difference in industry value between the base case 

and the standards case, which DOE calculated by summing the discounted industry cash 

flows from the base year (2011) through the end of the analysis period. The discussion 

also notes the difference in cash flow between the base case and the standards case in the 

year before the compliance date of potential amended energy conservation standards. 

This figure provides a proxy for the magnitude of the required conversion costs relative 

to the cash flow generated by the industry in the base case. 

To assess the lower end of the range of potential impacts on the residential clothes 

washer industry, DOE modeled the no commoditization markup scenario. The no 

commoditization scenario assumes that the baseline manufacturer markup structure does 

not change in the standards case. In this scenario, the higher markup for the 2011 

ENERGY STAR level and the additional markup for CEE Tier 2 and Tier 3 products 

continue in the standards case. This scenario also assumes that manufacturers would be 

able to fully pass the higher production costs required for more efficient products on to 

their customers in the standards case. In general, the more standards reduce the ability to 

differentiate on efficiency and the larger the product price increases, the less likely 

manufacturers are to achieve the cash flow from operations calculated in this scenario 

because the less likely it is that manufacturers would be able to fully mark up these larger 

cost increases. 
219

DOE also assessed two tiered markup scenarios, the tiered markup scenario and 

the tiered markup scenario with margin impacts. The latter represents the upper bound of 

the range of potential impacts on the industry. In the standards case, both tiered markup 

scenarios consider the situation in which the breadth of a manufacturer’s portfolio of 

products shrinks as amended standards result in the elimination of lower efficiency tiers 

from the market and the erosion of premium markups for higher-tier products. These

scenarios model a reduction in markups that manufacturers may experience under more 

stringent amended energy conservation standards as premium products earn the same 

markups previously held by lower efficiency tiers. In the tiered markup scenario with 

margin impacts, no additional operating profit is earned on the higher production costs of 

products that meet the minimum energy conservation standard in the standards case, 

eroding profit margins as a percentage of total revenue. In addition, as base-case 

efficiency differentiators are eliminated in the standards case, products that previously 

earned a premium markup move to lower efficiency markup tiers. 

DOE used the reference NIA shipment scenario for all MIA scenarios used to 

characterize the potential INPV impacts. The shipment forecast is an important driver of 

the INPV results below (Table V-8 through Table V-10). The reference NIA shipment 

scenario includes two elasticity effects: (1) a relative price elasticity, which assumes

higher product prices in the standards case result in lower shipments, and, in turn, lower

industry revenue and INPV and (2) a cross-price elasticity, which changes the relative 

market share of top-loading and front-loading clothes washers as price increases alter 
220

their relative costs to consumers. The reference NIA shipment scenario also includes the 

default price forecast as described in chapter 10 of the direct final rule TSD.

Table V-8 Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Residential Clothes Washers – No 

Commoditization Markup Scenario

Units Base 

Case

Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV (2010$ 

millions 2,585.7 ) 2,529.4 2,571.3 2,682.0 2,790.7 2,841.2 

Change in 

INPV

(2010$ 

millions - ) (56.3) (14.3) 96.4 205.0 255.5 

(%) - -2.2% -0.6% 3.7% 7.9% 9.9%

Product 

Conversion 

Costs

(2010$ 

millions - ) 22.6 41.6 107.5 204.3 210.8

Capital 

Conversion 

Costs

(2010$ 

millions - ) 81.2 107.7 311.0 487.4 502.9

Total 

Conversion 

Costs

(2010$ 

millions - ) 103.9 149.3 418.5 691.8 713.7

Table V-9 Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Residential Clothes Washers – Tiered 

Markup Scenario

Units Base 

Case

Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV (2010$ 

millions 2,585.7 ) 2,529.4 2,110.0 1,762.8 1,453.0 1,417.5 

Change in 

INPV

(2010$ 

millions - ) (56.3) (475.7) (822.9) (1,132.7) (1,168.1)

(%) - -2.2% -18.4% -31.8% -43.8% -45.2%

Product 

Conversion 

Costs

(2010$ 

millions - ) 22.6 41.6 107.5 204.3 210.8

Capital 

Conversion 

Costs

(2010$ 

millions - ) 81.2 107.7 311.0 487.4 502.9

Total 

Conversion 

Costs

(2010$ 

millions - ) 103.9 149.3 418.5 691.8 713.7
221

Table V-10 Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Residential Clothes Washers –

Tiered Markup Scenario with Margin Impacts 

Units Base 

Case

Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV (2010$ 

millions 2,585.7 ) 2,521.7 2,095.3 1,726.9 1,329.3 1,250.4 

Change in 

INPV

(2010$ 

millions - ) (64.0) (490.3) (858.8) (1,256.4) (1,335.3)

(%) - -2.5% -19.0% -33.2% -48.6% -51.6%

Product 

Conversion 

Costs

(2010$ 

millions - ) 22.6 41.6 107.5 204.3 210.8

Capital 

Conversion 

Costs

(2010$ 

millions - ) 81.2 107.7 311.0 487.4 502.9

Total

Conversion 

Costs

(2010$ 

millions - ) 103.9 149.3 418.5 691.8 713.7

At TSL 1, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range -$56.3 million to -$64.0

million, or a change in INPV of -2.2 percent to -2.5 percent. At this level, industry free 

cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 20.2 percent to $170.0 million, 

compared to the base-case value of $213.1 million in the year leading up to the amended 

energy conservation standards. 

Because the top-loading and front-loading standard clothes washers comprise 

over 98 percent of the total residential clothes washer shipments, the vast majority of the 

INPV impacts come from the standard-size product classes. At TSL 1, most impacts on 

both INPV and free cash flow stem from the modest changes required for top-loading 

standard clothes washers because all of the front-loading standard residential clothes 

washers on the market today already meet standards at this level. For top-loading clothes 

washers, of which only 13 percent of the market currently meets standards proposed at 
222

TSL 1, the impacts on INPV and free cash flow arise from increases in upfront 

investment for product development and, to a lesser extent, the per-unit component costs 

required to achieve this efficiency level. TSL 1 would require investments in product 

redesign and improvements to facilities totaling approximately $103.9 million in an 

industry with base-case annual revenues of more than $4.4 billion in the year the 

standards go into effect. Regarding increases in component costs, the design options used 

to meet standards at TSL 1 include component changes such as electronic controls, 

agitator modification, and basket modifications. For top-loading standard residential 

clothes washers, these changes contribute only $8.44 (3.4 percent) to arrive at an MPC of 

$256.09. In summation, the cumulative effect on INPV and free cash flow is minimal 

largely because all front-loading standard products and some top-loading standard 

products already meet the efficiencies required at TSL 1, and the design changes for the 

top-loading standard products that do not meet the efficiency required at TSL1 would 

impose minimal costs. Further, as the efficiencies required at TSL 1 are well below 

ENERGY STAR levels, manufacturers are likely to retain the premiums they currently 

see across the full range of product efficiencies.

At TSL 2, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range -$14.3 million to -$490.3

million, or a change in INPV of -0.6 percent to -19.0 percent. At this level, industry free 

cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 28.4 percent to $152.6 million, 

compared to the base-case value of $213.1 million in the year leading up to the amended 

energy conservation standards.
223

Because the top-loading and front-loading standard clothes washers comprise 

over 98 percent of the total residential clothes washer shipments, the vast majority of the 

INPV impacts come from the standard-size product classes. At TSL 2, the impacts on 

INPV and free cash flow result from higher per-unit costs for both top-loading and frontloading standard-sized product classes as well as increases in product and capital 

conversion costs for both of these product classes. The design options used to meet 

standards at TSL 2 for top-loading standard-size products include additional component 

changes to enable higher spin speeds and better control beyond the improvements to 

electronic controls and the agitator and basket associated with TSL 1. For front-loading 

standard-size products, TSL 2 is achieved by the use of an electronic user interface. The 

resulting MPC for top-loading standard residential clothes washers is approximately 

$261.88 at TSL 2, a $14.23 (5.7 percent) increase over current baseline units and similar 

to the incremental costs at TSL 1. For front-loading standard residential clothes washers, 

the MPC is approximately $524.33, a $6.20 (1.2 percent) increase from the baseline. The 

product redesign and incorporation of these changes into manufacturing lines requires

approximately $149.3 million in total conversion costs—a $45.4 million increase from 

TSL 1. TSL 2 brings all front-loading standard washers up to current ENERGY STAR 

standard levels. The most severe impact to INPV at TSL 2 is the result of margin 

compression on front-loading standard clothes washers as manufacturers forfeit 

premiums and cut into margins as they try to maintain a marginally compliant 

competitively priced entry level product. While only a small fraction of front-loading 

clothes washers (4 percent of shipments) would be impacted in the standards case at 

TSL2, in the tiered markup scenario with margin compression the profitability impacts on 
224

front-loading clothes washers has a disproportionately large negative impact on INPV 

because most of the market is ENERGY STAR compliant in the base case. 

At TSL 3, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range $96.4 million to -$858.8

million, or a change in INPV of 3.7 percent to -33.2 percent. At this level, industry free 

cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 3.6 percent to $205.5 million, 

compared to the base-case value of $213.1 million in the year leading up to the amended 

energy conservation standards in 2015.

At TSL3, the largest impacts to free cash flow and INPV stem from the 

substantial upfront investments required to achieve this efficiency level. While the 

efficiency requirements for top-loading standard clothes washers in 2015 require 

incremental changes to existing products, the 2018 efficiency requirements for toploading standard clothes washers are more substantial. Because only 9 percent of current 

shipments of top-loading standard clothes washers meet the 2018 efficiency standards 

established at TSL 3, manufacturing products to meet the 2018 standards would require 

large investments in product redesign and conversion of facilities. Substantial

investments would also be required for manufacturers to meet the 2015 front-loading 

standard. The total conversion cost required to meet the 2015 and 2018 standards at TSL 

3 is approximately $418.5 million—a substantial fraction of overall industry value and

$269.2 million higher than at TSL 2. Less than 25 percent of the conversion costs 

associated with TSL 3 can be attributed to the 2015 compliance for top-loading standard 

products.. This is a considerably smaller factor than at TSL 1 and TSL 2 at which 97 
225

percent and 81 percent of conversion costs can be attributed to standard top-loading 

compliance, respectively. The design options used to meet the 2015 front-loading and 

2018 top-loading standards at TSL 3 include larger unit capacities, damping systems, and 

reinforced structural elements. Substantial changes to existing production facilities would 

be required to manufacture products to incorporate the 2015 front-loading and 2018 toploading design options. Several manufacturers have already introduced products that 

meet the 2015 front-loading standard and 2018 top-loading standard efficiency levels,

which mitigates the required changes to production facilities for these manufacturers. The 

compliance dates of TSL 3 also mitigate the effect of the large conversion costs required 

to meet the 2018 top-loading standards, subjecting the impact on cash flows to greater 

discounting while also allowing manufactures to delay or spread out their conversion 

costs. At TSL 3, the MPC for top-loading standard residential clothes washers is $256.09 

to meet the 2015 energy conservation standard and $272.93 to meet the 2018 energy 

conservation standard. For front-loading standard residential clothes washers the MPC is 

approximately $535.38 to meet the 2015 energy conservation standard. For the 2015 

standard this is a $8.44 (3.4 percent) increase for top-loading standard clothes washers 

and a $17.25 (3.3 percent) increase for front-loading standard clothes washers. For the 

2018 energy conservation standard for top-loading standard clothes washers, this is a 

$25.28 (10.2 percent) increase. In the scenario in which manufacturers see no 

commoditization of higher efficiency clothes washers, the modest increases to MPC 

translate to higher margins sufficient to offset the initial capital investments and product 

design costs over the 30 year analysis period. In contrast in the tiered mark up scenario, 

because TSL 3 sets standards for top-loading standard clothes washers at current 
226

ENERGY STAR levels and standards for front-loading standard clothes washers above 

these levels, manufacturers lose their premium markup for high efficiency standard-size 

product classes leading to a substantial reduction in future revenues and subsequently in 

INPV.

At TSL 4, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range $205.0 million to -$1,256.4

million, or a change in INPV of 7.9 percent to -48.6 percent. At this level, industry free 

cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 130.7 percent to -$65.5 million, 

compared to the base-case value of $213.1 million in the year leading up to the amended 

energy conservation standards. 

Much like TSL 3, the impacts to INPV at TSL 4 result primarily from the 

substantial upfront investments required to achieve the amended efficiency levels for 

standard-size products, the incremental increases in per-unit costs, and the potential 

margin impacts. For top-loading units, in contrast to TSL 3, manufacturers are required to 

cover the conversion costs for all products by 2015. Manufacturing products to meet 

standards for both standard-size product classes at TSL 4 may require a complete 

platform overhaul, resulting in significant investments in both product redesign and the 

conversion of facilities. The total conversion cost required to meet standards at TSL 4 is 

approximately $691.8 million—a $273.3 million increase from TSL 3. The design 

options used to meet standards at TSL 4 include changes such as larger capacity, 

accelerometers, and better control technology beyond what is required for TSL 3. The 

resulting MPC for top-loading standard residential clothes washers at TSL 4 is 
227

approximately $308.30, and approximately $572.01 for front-loading standard residential 

clothes washers. This is a $60.65 (24.5 percent) and a $53.88 (10.4 percent) increase 

from the baseline for top-loading and front-loading standard residential clothes washers, 

respectively. This increase in MPC translates to a 3.5 percent decrease in 2015 shipments. 

However, the impact on INPV arising from a decrease in shipments from price elasticity 

is minor in comparison to that stemming from product commoditization and margin 

impacts as analyzed in the tiered markup scenario with margin impacts for standard-sized 

product classes. As TSL 4 brings standards for both top-loading and front-loading 

standard products above current ENERGY STAR levels, the fraction of products that are 

eligible for any additional markup above the baseline is further reduced as manufacturers 

sacrifice margins as they continue to seek to maintain a low-price-point basic product 

offering.

At TSL 5, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range $255.5 million to -$1,335.3

million, or a change in INPV of 9.9 percent to -51.6 percent. At this level, industry free 

cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 134.9 percent to -$74.3 million, 

compared to the base-case value of $213.1 million in the year leading up to the amended 

energy conservation standards.

TSL 5 represents the max-tech efficiency level for both top-loading and frontloading standard clothes washers. The effects on INPV result from similar sources as 

TSL 4, including the substantial upfront investments required to achieve the amended 

efficiency levels, the incremental increases in per-unit costs, and the potential margin 
228

impacts. These effects, however, are compounded by the higher upfront investments for 

facility improvements and product development, the additional increases to the MPC, and 

the collapse of manufacturer margins as analyzed in the tiered markup scenario with 

margin impacts. At present, the market share of commercially available residential 

clothes washers that conform to this standard is negligible. As such, standards will affect 

nearly all platforms and manufacturers will incur substantial conversion costs associated 

with total redesigns and improvements to all production facilities. The total conversion 

cost required to meet standards at TSL 5 is approximately $713.7 million—a $21.9

million increase from TSL 4. TSL 5 does not delay compliance for the more stringent 

standard either top-loading product class, so manufacturers will incur all product and 

capital conversion costs by 2015, leading to a larger negative impact on INPV. The MPC 

for top-loading standard residential clothes washers is approximately $317.44 at TSL 5, 

and approximately $591.64 for front-loading standard residential clothes washers. This is 

a $69.79 (28.2 percent) and a $73.51 (14.2 percent) increase from the baseline for toploading and front-loading standard residential clothes washers, respectively. However, 

the increase in per-unit production costs at TSL 5 relative to those at TSL 4 is 

comparatively small and involves only minimal incremental design options such as 

changes to load size sensors and more precise dispensing of laundry detergent and 

additives. With the increase in MPCs, 2015 shipments are forecast to decrease by 

approximately 4.4 percent at TSL 5. However, the impact on INPV arising from a 

decrease in shipments from price elasticity is minor in comparison to that stemming from 

product commoditization and margin impacts as analyzed in the tiered markup scenario

with margin impacts. Where TSL 4 still provided some room for markups above the most 
229

basic units, TSL 5 sets the standard for all products as high as technically feasible, 

leaving manufacturers no ability to differentiate products by efficiency. Thus, all margins 

collapse to their lowest levels.

b. Impacts on Employment

DOE used the GRIM to estimate the domestic labor expenditures and number of 

domestic production workers in the base case and at each TSL from 2011 to 2044. DOE 

used statistical data from the most recent U.S Census Bureau’s 2009 “Annual Survey of 

Manufacturers,” the results of the engineering analysis, and interviews with 

manufacturers to determine the inputs necessary to calculate industry-wide labor 

expenditures and domestic employment levels. Labor expenditures for the manufacture of 

a product are a function of the labor intensity of the product, the sales volume, and an 

assumption that wages in real terms remain constant.

In the GRIM, DOE used the labor content of each product and the manufacturing 

production costs from the engineering analysis to estimate the annual labor expenditures

in the residential clothes washer industry. DOE used Census data and interviews with 

manufacturers to estimate the portion of the total labor expenditures that is attributable to 

domestic labor.

The production worker estimates in this section cover only workers up to the linesupervisor level who are directly involved in fabricating and assembling a product within 

an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) facility. Workers performing services that 
230

are closely associated with production operations, such as material handing with a 

forklift, are also included as production labor. DOE’s estimates account only for 

production workers who manufacture the specific products covered by this rulemaking.

The employment impacts shown in Table V-11 represent the potential production 

employment that could result following amended energy conservation standards. The 

upper end of the results in this table estimates the total potential increase in the number of 

production workers after amended energy conservation standards. To calculate the total 

potential increase, DOE assumed that manufacturers continue to produce the same scope 

of covered products in domestic production facilities and domestic production is not 

shifted to lower-labor-cost countries. Because there is a real risk of manufacturers 

evaluating sourcing decisions in response to amended energy conservation standards, the 

lower end of the range of employment results in Table V-11 includes the estimated total 

number of U.S. production workers in the industry who could lose their jobs if all 

existing production were moved outside of the United States. While the results present a 

range of employment impacts following the compliance date of amended energy 

conservation standards, the discussion below also includes a qualitative discussion of the 

likelihood of negative employment impacts at the various TSLs. Finally, the employment 

impacts shown are independent of the employment impacts from the broader U.S. 

economy, which are documented in chapter 13 of the direct final rule TSD.

Using the GRIM, DOE estimates that in the absence of amended energy 

conservation standards, there would be 8,990 domestic production workers involved in 
231

manufacturing residential clothes washers in 2015. Using 2009 Census Bureau data and 

interviews with manufacturers, DOE estimates that approximately 70 percent of 

residential clothes washers sold in the United States are manufactured domestically. 

Table V-11 shows the range of the impacts of potential amended energy conservation 

standards on U.S. production workers in the clothes washer industry.

Table V-11 Potential Changes in the Total Number of Domestic Residential Clothes 

Washer Production Workers in 2015

Base 

Case 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

Total Number of 

Domestic Production 

Workers in 2015 

(without changes in 

production locations)

8,990 9,058 9,164 9,080 9,376 8,604 

Potential Changes in 

Domestic Production 

Workers in 2015*

- 68 -

(8,890)

174 -

(8,890)

90 -

(8,890)

386 -

(8,890)

(386) -

(8,890)

*DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts. Numbers in parentheses indicate negative 

numbers. 

All examined TSLs show relatively minor impacts on domestic employment 

levels relative to total industry employment at the lower end of the range of impacts. At 

all TSLs, most of the design options analyzed by DOE do not greatly alter the labor 

content of the final product. For example, more complex wash cycles or larger basket 

sizes involve one-time changes to the final product but do not significantly change the 

number of steps required for the final assembly of the clothes washer (which would add 

labor). Because many manufacturers have recently introduced high efficiency products in 

the United States that meet or exceed the standards in today’s final rule, it is unlikely 

today’s direct final rule would greatly impact the sourcing decisions of these 

manufacturers. However, at higher TSLs, some of the design options analyzed greatly 
232

impact the ability of manufacturers to make product changes within existing platforms. 

The very large upfront capital costs at these levels (especially for introducing new frontloading clothes washer platforms) could influence the decision of manufacturers to 

relocate some or all of the domestic production of these clothes washers to lower labor 

cost countries.

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

Most shipments of top-loading residential clothes washers fall below the 2015 and 

2018 amended energy conservation standards. However, in response to the EISA 2007 

water factor requirements, multiple manufacturers have modified baseline products to 

comply with these more stringent regulations. These changes were incremental 

modifications to lower-efficiency platforms. The 2015 efficiency requirements would 

also involve modifications to lower-end platforms for top-loading clothes washers for all 

manufacturers, but would similarly not require completely new platforms at a 

significantly higher upfront cost. In addition, multiple manufacturers have recently 

introduced new top-loading clothes washers that meet substantially higher efficiencies 

than lower-end products at the baseline efficiency today. The introduction of these 

platforms mitigates the required capital conversion costs for the industry to meet the 2018 

top-loading energy conservation standards. DOE believes that the mitigated capital 

conversion costs for manufacturers that have already introduced high-efficiency toploading clothes washers, as well as the additional 3 years for all remaining manufacturers 

to meet the more efficient standards for top-loading clothes washers in 2018, will allow 
233

the industry to meet demand and continue to offer a full range of products after the 

compliance date.

More than 70 percent of front-loading shipments current meet the front-loading 

energy conservation standards in today’s direct final rule. In addition, every manufacturer 

that ships front-loading clothes washers offers products at the amended energy 

conservation standard. Since manufacturers will not have to make extensive platform 

changes but will need to increase the production of existing product by the 2015 

compliance date, the experience of multiple front-loading manufacturers that already 

produce standards-compliant front-loading clothes washers will allow the industry to 

meet the amended energy conservation standards proposed in the direct final rule.

d. Impacts on Sub-Groups of Manufacturers

Using average cost assumptions to develop an industry cash-flow estimate may

not be adequate for assessing differential impacts among manufacturer subgroups. Small 

manufacturers, niche equipment manufacturers, and manufacturers exhibiting a cost 

structure substantially different from the industry average could be affected 

disproportionately. DOE analyzed the impacts to small business, as discussed in section 

VI.B. DOE did not identify any other subgroups for residential clothes washers for this 

rulemaking.
234

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

While any one regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, 

the combined effects of several impending regulations may have serious consequences 

for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, or an entire industry. Assessing the 

impact of a single regulation may overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition 

to energy conservation standards, other regulations can significantly affect 

manufacturers’ financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the same 

manufacturer can strain profits and can lead companies to abandon product lines or 

markets with lower expected future returns than competing products. For these reasons, 

DOE conducts an analysis of cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings 

pertaining to appliance efficiency.

Manufacturers provided comment on some of these regulations during the 

framework stage of this rulemaking. DOE summarizes and addresses these comments in 

section IV.I.3.a. For the cumulative regulatory burden, DOE attempts to quantify or 

describe the impacts of other Federal regulations that have a compliance date within 

approximately 3 years of the compliance date of this rulemaking. Most of the major 

regulations that meet this criteria identified by DOE are other energy conservation 

standards for products and equipment made by manufacturers of residential clothes 

washers. See chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD for the results of DOE’s analysis of 

the cumulative regulatory burden. 
235

3. National Impact Analysis

a. Significance of Energy Savings

To estimate the energy savings through 2044 attributable to potential standards 

for clothes washers, DOE compared the energy consumption of those products under the 

base case to their anticipated energy consumption under each TSL. Table V-12 presents 

DOE’s forecasts of the national energy savings for each TSL for clothes washers, and 

Table V-13 presents forecasts of the national water savings.

47 The savings were 

calculated using the approach described in section IV.G. Chapter 10 of the direct final 

rule TSD presents tables that also show the magnitude of the energy savings if the 

savings are discounted at rates of 7 percent and 3 percent. Discounted energy savings 

represent a policy perspective in which energy savings realized farther in the future are 

less significant than energy savings realized in the nearer term.

Table V-12 Clothes Washers: Cumulative National Energy Savings 

Energy (quads) Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

Standard Size 1.52 1.43 1.98 2.81 3.27

Compact Size 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05

Table V-13 Clothes Washers: Cumulative National Water Savings

Water (trillion gallons) Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

Standard Size 1.12 1.06 3.01 5.31 6.87

Compact Size -0.01 -0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02

 47 National energy and water savings are cumulative over a 30-year period. Any savings for products 

entering the housing stock in this 30-year period which occur beyond the 30-year time limit are not 

reported in the national totals. 

Comment [A13]: Footnote recommended by 

OIRA.
236

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits

DOE estimated the cumulative NPV to the nation of the total costs and savings for 

consumers that would result from particular standard levels for clothes washers. In 

accordance with the OMB’s guidelines on regulatory analysis (OMB Circular A-4, 

section E, September 17, 2003), DOE calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-

percent real discount rate. The 7-percent rate is an estimate of the average before-tax rate 

of return to private capital in the U.S. economy, and reflects the returns to real estate and 

small business capital as well as corporate capital. DOE used this discount rate to 

approximate the opportunity cost of capital in the private sector, since recent OMB 

analysis has found the average rate of return to capital to be near this rate. In addition, 

DOE used the 3-percent rate to capture the potential effects of standards on private 

consumption (e.g., through higher prices for products and the purchase of reduced 

amounts of energy). This rate represents the rate at which society discounts future 

consumption flows to their present value. This rate can be approximated by the real rate 

of return on long-term government debt (i.e., yield on Treasury notes minus annual rate 

of change in the Consumer Price Index), which has averaged about 3 percent on a pre-tax 

basis for the last 30 years.

Table V-14 shows the consumer NPV results for each TSL DOE considered for 

clothes washers, using a 3-percent and a 7-percent discount rate. The impacts are counted 

over the lifetime of products purchased in 2015–2044. 
237

Table V-14 Clothes Washers: Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits, 

3-and 7-Percent Discount Rate*

Discount rate

Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

3 percent 

Billion 2010$

Standard 19.9 18.1 30.7 41.0 49.9

Compact 0.32 0.32 0.56 0.58 0.58

7 percent Standard 8.6 7.6 12.8 16.2 19.7

Compact 0.14 0.14 0.23 0.24 0.24

* The impacts are counted over the lifetime of products purchased in 2015–2044.

The NPV results presented in Table V-14 are based on the default product price 

trend. As discussed in section IV.G.3, DOE developed several sensitivity cases with 

alternative forecasts of future prices of clothes washers. The impact of these alternative 

forecasts on the NPV results is presented in appendix 10-C of the direct final rule TSD.

Circular A-4 requires agencies to present analytical results, including separate 

schedules of the monetized benefits and costs that show the type and timing of benefits 

and costs. Circular A-4 also directs agencies to consider the variability of key elements 

underlying the estimates of benefits and costs. DOE believes its standard 30-year 

analysis is fully compliant with Circular A-4. For this rulemaking, DOE undertook an 

additional sensitivity analysis of its standard 30-year analysis, in compliance with 

Circular A-4, using a 9-year analytical period. The choice of a 9-year period is a proxy 

for the timeline in EPCA for the review of the energy conservation standard established 

in this direct final rule and potential revision of and compliance with a new standard for 

clothes washers.48

 48 EPCA requires DOE to review its standards at least once every 6 years, and requires, for certain products 

including clothes washers, a 3 year period after any new standard is promulgated before compliance is 

required, except that in no case may any new standards be required within 6 years of the compliance date of 

the standards established in this direct final rule. While adding a 6-year review to the 3-year compliance 

 We would note that the review timeframe established in EPCA 
238

generally does not overlap with the product lifetime, product manufacturing cycles or 

other factors specific to residential clothes washers. Thus, this information is presented 

for informational purposes only and is not indicative of any change in DOE’s analytical 

methodology. 

The sensitivity analysis results based on a 9-year analytical period are presented 

below. Table V-15 presents DOE’s forecasts of the national energy savings for each TSL 

for clothes washers, and Table V-16 presents forecasts of the national water savings.49

Table V-17 shows the consumer NPV results for each TSL DOE considered for clothes

washers, using a 3-percent and a 7-percent discount rate. For determination of the NPV, 

the impacts are counted over the lifetime of products purchased in 2015–2023 (note that 

the average lifetime of a clothes washer is 14.2 years, which is longer than the 9-year 

analysis period; thus, the NPV estimate incorporates all of the operating cost savings of 

clothes washers purchased in the 9 year analytical period).

Table V-15 Clothes Washers: Cumulative National Energy Savings, Nine-Year 

Analysis Period

Energy (quads) Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

Standard Size 0.23 0.21 0.27 0.41 0.48

Compact Size 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

 period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes that it may undertake reviews at any time within the 6 year period 

and that the 3-year compliance date may yield to the 6-year backstop. A 9-year analysis period does not 

reflect the variability that may occur in the timing of standards reviews and the fact that for some consumer 

products, the compliance period is 5 years rather than 3 years. 49 National energy and water savings are cumulative over the 9-year period. Any savings for products 

entering the housing stock in this 9-year period which occur beyond the 9-year time limit are not reported 

in the national totals. 
239

Table V-16 Clothes Washers: Cumulative National Water Savings, Nine-Year 

Analysis Period

Water (trillion gallons) Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

Standard Size 0.17 0.14 0.37 0.78 1.02

Compact Size 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Table V-17 Clothes Washers: Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits, 

3- and 7-Percent Discount Rates, Nine-Year Analysis Period*

Discount rate

Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

3 percent 

Billion 2010$

Standard 7.40 6.48 10.60 14.21 17.35

Compact 0.12 0.12 0.18 0.21 0.21

7 percent Standard 4.31 3.68 5.99 7.53 9.18

Compact 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.12 0.12

* The impacts are counted over the lifetime of products purchased in 2015–2023.

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment

DOE develops estimates of the indirect employment impacts of potential 

standards on the economy in general. As discussed above, DOE expects energy 

conservation standards for clothes washers to reduce energy bills for consumers of those 

products, and the resulting net savings to be redirected to other forms of economic 

activity. These expectedThose shifts in spending and economic activity could affect the 

demand for labor. As described in section IV.J, to estimate these effects DOE used an 

input/output model of the U.S. economy. presents the estimated net to estimate indirect 

employment impacts in 2020 and 2044 forof the TSLs that DOE considered in this 

rulemaking. Chapter 13 DOE understands that there are uncertainties involved in 

projecting employment impacts, especially changes in the later years of the direct final 

Comment [A14]: Changes recommended by 

OIRA. 
240

rue TSD presents more detailedanalysis. Therefore, DOE generated results for near-term 

timeframes (2015–2020), where these uncertainties are reduced.

Table - Net Increase in Jobs from Indirect Employment Effects Under Clothes 

Washer Trial Standard Levels

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

(thousand)

2020

2044

2.78

7.02

2.59

7.20

2.95

10.78

2.82

13.45

3.19

15.80

The input/output model suggestsresults suggest that today’s standards are likely to 

increasehave negligible impact on the net demand for labor in the economy. However, 

the projected gains are veryThe net change in jobs is so small relative to totalthat it would 

be imperceptible in national labor statistics and might be offset by other, unanticipated 

effects on employment (currently approximately 120 million). Moreover, neither the BLS 

data nor the input/output model DOE uses includes the quality or wage level. Chapter 13

of the jobs. direct final rue TSD presents more detailed results.

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products

As presented in section III.D.1.d of this notice, DOE concluded that the TSL 

adopted in this direct final rule would not reduce the utility or performance of the clothes 

washers under consideration in this rulemaking. Manufacturers of these products 

currently offer units that meet or exceed today’s standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV))

Comment [A15]: Changes recommended by 

OIRA.
241

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

DOE has also considered any lessening of competition that is likely to result from 

amended standards. The Attorney General determines the impact, if any, of any lessening 

of competition likely to result from a proposed standard, and transmits such

determination to DOE, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of such impact. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii))

DOE published a NOPR containing energy conservation standards identical to 

those set forth in today’s direct final rule and transmitted a copy of today’s direct final 

rule and the accompanying TSD to the Attorney General, requesting that the DOJ provide 

its determination on this issue. DOE will consider DOJ’s comments on the rule in 

determining whether to proceed with the direct final rule. DOE will also publish and 

respond to DOJ’s comments in the Federal Register in a separate notice.

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy

An improvement in the energy efficiency of the products subject to today’s rule is 

likely to improve the security of the nation’s energy system by reducing overall demand 

for energy. Reduced electricity demand may also improve the reliability of the electricity 

system. As a measure of this reduced demand, Table V-18 presents the estimated 

reduction in electricity generating capacity in 2044 for the TSLs that DOE considered in 

this rulemaking.
242

Table V-18 Reduction in Electric Generating Capacity in 2044 Under Trial 

Standard Levels for Clothes Washers

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

Clothes Washers

Gigawatts

0.882 1.01 1.30 1.64 1.86

Energy savings from amended standards for clothes washers are expected to 

produce environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases associated with electricity production. Table V-19 provides DOE’s 

estimate of cumulative CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions reductions that would be expected 

to result from the TSLs considered in this rulemaking. In the environmental 

assessmentemissions analysis (chapter 15 of the direct final rule TSD), DOE reports 

annual CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions reductions for each TSL.

IV.L, DOE has not reported SO2 emissions reductions 

from power plants because SO2 emissions caps have created uncertainty about the effect 

of energy conservation standards on the overall level of SO2 emissions in the United 

States. DOE also did not include NOX emissions reduction from power plants in States

subject to CAIR because the emissions caps mandated by CAIR mean that an energy 

conservation standard would not affect the overall level of NOX emissions in those 

States.50

 50 EPA issued the final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule on July 6, 2011 (http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/, 

last visited July 15, 2011). The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule will replace CAIR. In the Environmental 

Assessmentanalysis for this proposal to amend energy conservation standards, DOE’s discussion and 

conclusions about NOx emissions assumetoday’s rule assumes the implementation of CAIR and associated 

trading schemes and dodoes not take into account the very recently issued (July 6, 2011) Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule. In future rulemakings, DOE will adjust its relevant models to assumereflect the 

implementation of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. 
243

Table V-19 Emissions Reduction Estimated for Clothes Washer Trial Standard 

Levels (cumulative in 2015-2044)

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

CO2 (million metric tons) 87.65 81.96 112.90 155.51 178.82

NOX (thousand tons) 73.46 68.07 94.16 130.10 149.70

Hg (tons) 0.198 0.226 0.269 0.364 0.413

DOE also estimated monetary benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions 

of CO2 and NOX

IV.M, DOE used values for the SCC developed by an 

interagency process. The four values for CO2 emissions reductions resulting from that 

process (expressed in 2010$) are $4.9/ton (the average value from a distribution that uses 

a 5-percent discount rate), $22.3/ton (the average value from a distribution that uses a 3-

percent discount rate), $36.5/ton (the average value from a distribution that uses a 2.5-

percent discount rate), and $67.6/ton (the 95th-percentile value from a distribution that 

uses a 3-percent discount rate). These values correspond to the value of emission 

reductions in 2010; the values for later years are higher due to increasing damages as the 

magnitude of climate change increases. For each of the four cases, DOE calculated a 

present value of the stream of annual values using the same discount rate as used in the 

studies upon which the dollar-per-ton values are based. Table V-20 presents the global 

values of CO2 emissions reductions at each TSL. DOE calculated domestic values as a 

range from 7 percent to 23 percent of the global values. Those results are presented in

Table V-21.
244

Table V-20 Estimates of Global Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reductions Under 

Clothes Washer Trial Standard Levels

TSL

Million 2010$

5% discount 

rate, 

average*

3% discount 

rate, 

average*

2.5% discount 

rate, average*

3% discount 

rate, 95th

percentile*

1 410 2143 3645 6527

2 384 2007 3414 6112

3 530 2777 4727 8457

4 729 3813 6488 11613

5 838 4386 7462 13357

* Columns are labeled by the discount rate used to calculate the SCC and whether it is an average value or 

drawn from a different part of the distribution. 

Table V-21 Estimates of Domestic Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reductions 

Under Clothes Washer Trial Standard Levels

TSL

Million 2010$

5% discount 

rate, average**

*

3% discount 

rate, average**

2.5% discount 

rate, average**

3% discount rate, 

95th percentile**

1 29 to 94 150 to 493 255 to 838 457 to 1501

2 27 to 88 140 to 462 239 to 785 428 to 1406

3 37 to 122 194 to 639 331 to 1087 592 to 1945

4 51 to 168 267 to 877 454 to 1492 813 to 2671

5 59 to 193 307 to 1009 522 to 1716 935 to 3072

* Domestic values are presented as a range between 7 percent and 23 percent of the global values.

** Columns are labeled by the discount rate used to calculate the SCC and whether it is an average value or 

drawn from a different part of the distribution. 

DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the contribution 

of CO2 and other GHG emissions to changes in the future global climate and the potential 

resulting damages to the world economy continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any value 

placed in this rulemaking on reducing CO2 emissions is subject to change. DOE, together 

with other Federal agencies, will continue to review various methodologies for estimating 

the monetary value of reductions in CO2 and other GHG emissions. This ongoing review 

will consider the comments on this subject that are part of the public record for this and 
245

other rulemakings, as well as other methodological assumptions and issues. However, 

consistent with DOE’s legal obligations, and taking into account the uncertainty involved 

with this particular issue, DOE has included in this final rule the most recent values and 

analyses resulting from the ongoing interagency review process.

DOE also estimated a range for the cumulative monetary value of the economic 

benefits associated with NOX emissions reductions anticipated to result from amended 

standards for clothes washers. The dollar-per-ton values that DOE used are discussed in 

section IV.M. Table V-22 presents the cumulative present values for each TSL calculated 

using 3-percent and 7-percent discount rates.

Table V-22 Estimates of Present Value of NOX Emissions Reductions Under Clothes 

Washer Trial Standard Levels

TSL

3% discount rate 7% discount rate

Million 2010$

1

Million 2010$

22 to 224 9 to 97

2 20 to 207 9 to 90

3 28 to 286 12 to 122

4 39 to 396 17 to 171

5 44 to 456 19 to 197

The NPV of the monetized benefits associated with emissions reductions can be 

viewed as a complement to the NPV of the consumer savings calculated for each TSL 

considered in this rulemaking. Table V-23 shows an example of the calculation of the 

combined NPV including benefits from emissions reductions for the case of TSL 3 for 

front-loading clothes washers. Table V-24 and Table V-25 present the NPV values that 

result from adding the estimates of the potential economic benefits resulting from 
246

reduced CO2 and NOX emissions in each of four valuation scenarios to the NPV of 

consumer savings calculated for each TSL considered in this rulemaking, at both a 7-

percent and a 3-percent discount rate. The CO2 values used in the columns of each table 

correspond to the four scenarios for the valuation of CO2 emission reductions presented 

in section IV.M.

Table V-23 Adding Net Present Value of Consumer Savings to Present Value of 

Monetized Benefits from CO2 and NOX Emissions Reductions at TSL 3

Category

Present 

Value Discount 

Rate (billion 

2010$)

Benefits

(%)

Operating Cost Savings 15.3 7

35.4 3

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $4.9/t)* 0.53 5

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $22.3/t)* 2.78 3

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $36.5/t)* 4.73 2.5

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $67.6/t)* 8.46 3

NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,537/Ton)*

0.07 7

0.16 3

Costs

Total Incremental Installed Costs 2.30 7

4.15 3

Net Benefits/Costs

Net Benefits, Including CO2 and NOX** 15.9 7

34.2 3

* These values represent global values (in 2010$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under several 

scenarios. See section IV.M for a discussion of the derivation of these values. The value for NOX (in 

2010$) is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis.

** Net Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases utilize the central estimate of social cost of CO2 emissions 

calculated at a 3% discount rate, which is equal to $21.4/ton in 2010 (in 2010$).
247

Table V-24 Results of Adding Net Present Value of Consumer Savings (at 7% 

Discount Rate) to Net Present Value of Monetized Benefits from CO2 and NOX 

Emissions Reductions Under Clothes Washer Trial Standard Levels

TSL

Consumer NPV at 7% Discount Rate added with:

SCC Value of 

$4.9/metric ton 

CO2* and Low 

Value for 

NOX**

SCC Value of 

$22.3/metric ton 

CO2* and Medium 

Value for NOX**

billion 2010$

SCC Value of 

$36.5/metric ton 

CO2* and Medium 

Value for NOX**

billion 2010$

SCC Value of 

$67.6/metric ton 

CO2* and High 

Value for NOX**

billion 2010$

1

billion 2010$

9.1 10.9 12.4 15.4

2 8.2 9.8 11.2 14.0

3 13.6 15.9 17.8 21.6

4 17.2 20.3 23.0 28.2

5 20.8 24.4 27.5 33.5

* These label values represent the global SCC of CO2 in 2010, in 2010$. Their present values have been 

calculated with scenario-consistent discount rates. See section IV.M for a discussion of the derivation of 

these values.

** Low Value corresponds to $450 per ton of NOX emissions. Medium Value corresponds to $2,537 per 

ton of NOX emissions. High Value corresponds to $4,623 per ton of NOX emissions.

Table V-25 Results of Adding Net Present Value of Consumer Savings (at 3% 

Discount Rate) to Net Present Value of Monetized Benefits from CO2 and NOX

Emissions Reductions Under Clothes Washer Trial Standard Levels

TSL

Consumer NPV at 3% Discount Rate added with:

SCC Value of 

$4.9/metric ton 

CO2* and Low 

Value for 

NOX**

SCC Value of 

$22.3/metric ton 

CO2* and Medium 

Value for NOX**

billion 2010$

SCC Value of 

$36.5/metric ton 

CO2* and Medium 

Value for NOX**

billion 2010$

SCC Value of 

$67.6/metric ton 

CO2* and High 

Value for NOX**

billion 2010$

1

billion 2010$

20.6 22.4 23.9 26.9

2 18.9 20.6 22.0 24.8

3 31.8 34.2 36.2 40.0

4 42.4 45.6 48.3 53.6

5 51.4 55.1 58.2 64.3

* These label values represent the global SCC of CO2 in 2010, in 2010$. Their present values have been 

calculated with scenario-consistent discount rates. See section IV.M for a discussion of the derivation of 

these values.

** Low Value corresponds to $450 per ton of NOX emissions. Medium Value corresponds to $2,537 per 

ton of NOX emissions. High Value corresponds to $4,623 per ton of NOX emissions.
248

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

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

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

as a result of market transactions, while the value of CO2 reductions is based on a global 

value. Second, the assessments of operating cost savings and CO2 savings are performed 

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

operating cost savings is measured for the lifetime of products shipped in 2015–2044. 

The SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the present value of all future climate-related 

impacts resulting from the emission of one ton of carbon dioxide in each year. These 

impacts continue well beyond 2100.

7. Other Factors

The Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is economically 

justified, may consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI))) In developing the direct final rule, DOE has also 

considered the Joint Petition submitted to DOE. DOE recognizes the value of consensus 

agreements submitted by parties in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) and has 

weighed the value of such consensus in establishing the standards set forth in today’s 

final rule. DOE has encouraged the submission of consensus agreements as a way to get 

diverse interested parties together, to develop an independent and probative analysis 

useful in DOE standard setting, and to expedite the rulemaking process. DOE also 
249

believes that standard levels recommended in the consensus agreement may increase the 

likelihood for regulatory compliance, while decreasing the risk of litigation.

C.

When considering proposed standards, the new or amended energy conservation 

standard that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered product shall be designed to 

achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is 

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

determining whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary must determine 

whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens to the greatest extent practicable, 

in light of the seven statutory factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) 

The new or amended standard must also “result in significant conservation of energy.” 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 

Conclusion

The Department considered the impacts of standards at each trial standard level, 

beginning with maximum technologically feasible level, to determine whether that level 

was economically justified. Where the max-tech level was not justified, DOE then 

considered the next most efficient level and undertook the same evaluation until it 

reached the highest efficiency level that is both technologically feasible and economically 

justified and saves a significant amount of energy.

To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of each trial 

standard level, tables present a summary of the results of DOE’s quantitative analysis for 
250

each TSL. In addition to the quantitative results presented in the tables, DOE also 

considers other burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. Those include the 

impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers, such as low-income households and 

seniors, who may be disproportionately affected by a national standard. Section V.B.1 

presents the estimated impacts of each TSL for these subgroups.

DOE alsoAs background for the consideration of benefits from energy efficiency 

standards, DOE notes that the economics literature provides a wide-ranging discussion of 

how consumers trade off upfront costs and energy savings in the absence of government 

intervention. Much of this literature attempts to explain why consumers appear to 

undervalue energy efficiency improvements. This undervaluation suggests that regulation 

that promotes energy efficiency can produce significant net private gains (as well as 

producing social gains by, for example, reducing pollution). There is evidence that 

consumers undervalue future energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of information; (2) a 

lack of sufficient salience of the long-term or aggregate benefits; (3) a lack of sufficient 

savings to warrant delaying or altering purchases (for example, an inefficient ventilation 

fan in a new building or the delayed replacement of a water pump); (4) excessive focus 

on the short term, in the form of inconsistent weighting of future energy cost savings 

relative to available returns on other investments; (54) computational or other difficulties 

associated with the evaluation of relevant tradeoffs; and (65) a divergence in incentives 

(that is, renter versusvs. owner; or builder vs. purchaser). Other literature indicates that 

with less than perfect foresight and a high degree of uncertainty about the future, 
251

consumers may trade off these types of investments at a higher than expected rate 

between current consumption and uncertain future energy cost savings.

In itsDOE’s current regulatory analysis, potential changes in the benefits and 

costs of a regulation due to changes in consumer purchase decisions are included in two 

ways: (1). First, if consumers forego a purchase of a product in the standards case, this 

decreases sales for product manufacturers and the cost to manufacturers is included in the 

MIA, and (2). Second, DOE accounts for energy savings attributable only to products 

actually used by consumers in the standards case; if a regulatory option decreases the 

number of products used by consumers, this decreases the potential energy savings from 

an energy conservation standard. DOE provides detailed estimates of shipments and 

changes in the volume of product purchases in chapter 129 of the direct final rule TSD.

However, DOE’s current analysis does not explicitly control for heterogeneity in 

consumer preferences, preferences across subcategories of products or specific features, 

or consumer price sensitivity variation according to household income (Reiss and White

2004). , 2005).51

While DOE is not prepared at present to provide a fuller quantifiable framework 

for estimating the benefits and costs of changes in consumer purchase decisions due to an 

energy conservation standard, DOE seeks comments on how to more fully assess the 

potential impact of energy conservation standards on consumer choice and how to 

quantify this impact in its regulatory analysis in future rulemakings.is committed to 

 51 P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household Electricity Demand, Revisited. Review of Economic Studies

(2005) 72, 853–883.
252

developing a framework that can support empirical quantitative tools for improved 

assessment of the consumer welfare impacts of appliance standards. DOE has posted a 

paper that discusses the issue of consumer welfare impacts of appliance energy efficiency 

standards, and potential enhancements to the methodology by which these impacts are 

defined and estimated in the regulatory process.52

DOE also conducted an analysis of the impacts on consumer welfare of the 

standards on clothes washers that required compliance in January 2007. This analysis 

assumes consumers made washer purchase decisions optimally (i.e., taking full account 

of the tradeoff between up-front cost and future energy costs) and infers welfare 

implications based on price and quantity changes that occurred around the time of the 

standard change. The analysis assumes the 2007 policy change sharply reduced supply of 

low-efficiency units, which in turn sharply increased demand for higher-efficiency units.

The analysis used market survey data on total sales of washers purchased in the 

United States, with measures for units sold and average price broken down by washer 

brand and model. Values are reported for each month. The data include a limited number 

of attributes for each model, plus a measure of energy efficiency in terms of kilowatthours per year (kWh/y) for standard usage. The analysis used the kWh/y measure to 

proxy for washers that may have been closer and farther from the 2007 standard and 

ENERGY STAR specifications.

 52 Alan Sanstad. “Notes on the Economics of Household Energy Consumption and Technology Choice.” 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 2010. Available online at: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_theory.pdf
253

The net change in consumer welfare can be inferred from (a) the gain and/or loss 

from consumer welfare from increased purchases of higher-efficiency units minus (b) the 

loss in consumer welfare from reduced purchase of lower-efficiency units. Because 

washer units banned from manufacture in 2007 were still available for purchase for some 

months after the ban, observed changes in prices and quantities of the lower efficiency 

units facilitates estimation of (b). The data show that prices for these units increased 

slightly while quantities sold declined sharply. This suggests consumer welfare losses in 

(a) were modest. The data further show that prices of higher-efficiency units declined 

with the 2007 standard, in some cases markedly so. These price declines suggest that the 

welfare gains in (a) are quite substantial, and although the total gain cannot be inferred, 

any lower-bound estimate would indicate that these gains far exceed losses in (b). 

These inferred gains to consumers from the 2007 change in standards appears to 

have less to do with energy efficiency than with the way standards affect costs of 

production for high-efficiency units, and possibly with the way standards influence 

competition among washer-producing firms (e.g., see Ronnen, 1991).53 As the scale of 

production of high efficiency units increased, production costs and/or markups by washer 

manufacturers fell, thereby increasing consumer welfare. The analysis is described in 

appendix 8-F of the direct final rule TSD.

DOE welcomes comments on approaches for improved assessment of the 

consumer welfare impacts of appliance standards.

 53 Uri Ronnen. Minimum quality standards, fixed costs, and competition. RAND Journal of Economics.

Vol. 22, No. 4, Winter 1991.

Comment [A16]: Changes recommended by 

OIRA.
254

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Residential Clothes Washers

Table V-26 and Table V-27 summarize the quantitative impacts estimated for 

each TSL for residential clothes washers. The efficiency levels contained in each TSL are 

described in section V.A.

Table V-26 Summary of Results for Clothes Washer Trial Standard Levels: 

National Impacts

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

National Energy Savings (quads) 1.56 1.46 2.04 2.87 3.32

National Water Savings (trillion gal.) 1.11 1.05 3.03 5.33 6.89

NPV of Consumer Benefits (2010$ billion

3% discount rate

)

20.2 18.5 31.29 41.60 50.48

7% discount rate 8.7 7.77 13.01 16.42 19.92

Cumulative Emissions Reduction

CO2 (million metric tons) 87.65 81.96 112.90 155.51 178.82

NOX (thousand tons) 73.46 68.07 94.16 130.10 149.70

Hg (tons) 0.198 0.226 0.269 0.364 0.413

Value of Cumulative Emissions Reduction 

 CO2 (2010$ million 410 to 

6527 )* 384 to 6112

530 to 

8457

729 to 

11613

838 to 

13357

 NOX – 3% discount rate (2010$

million

22 to 

) 224

20 to 

207

28 to 286 39 to 396 44 to 456

 NOX – 7% discount rate (2010$ 

million

9 to 97

)

9 to 90 12 to 122 17 to 171 19 to 197

Generation Capacity Reduction 

(GW 0.882 )

** 1.01 1.30 1.64 1.86

Employment Impacts 

 Total Potential Change in Domestic 

Production Workers in 2015 

(thousands

0.068 to 

(8.99) )

0.174 to 

(8.99)

0.090 to 

(8.99)

0.386 to 

(8.99)

(0.386) to 

(8.99)

 Indirect Domestic Jobs (thousands)** 7.02 7.20 10.78 13.45 15.80

Parentheses indicate negative (-) values. 

* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2

emissions.

** Changes in 2044.
255
256

Table V-27 Summary of Results for Clothes Washer Trial Standard Levels: 

Consumer and Manufacturer Impacts

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3* TSL 4 TSL 5

Manufacturer Impacts

 Industry NPV (2010$ 

million)

(56.3) -

(64.0)

(14.3) -

(490.3) 96.4 - (858.8) 205.0 -(1,256.4)

255.5 -

(1,335.3)

 Industry NPV (% 

change) (2.2) - (2.5) (0.6) -(19.0) 3.7 - (33.2) 7.9 - (48.6) 9.9 - (51.6)

Consumer Mean LCC Savings (2010$)

Top-Loading Standard 

Clothes Washer 268 243 268/366 491 524

Front-Loading Standard 

Clothes Washer NA** 2.2 37 35 102

Top-Loading Compact

Clothes Washer 159 159 159/312 312 312

Front-Loading Compact

Clothes Washer 54 54 54 54 54

Consumer Median PBP (years)

Top-Loading Standard 

Clothes Washer 0.4 0.7 0.4/0.9 1.8 1.9

Front-Loading Standard 

Clothes Washer NA** 0.9 1.3 9.2 5.2

Top-Loading Compact

Clothes Washer 0.5 0.5 0.5/2.1 2.1 2.1

Front-Loading Compact

Clothes Washer 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts

Top-Loading Standard Clothes Washer

 Net Cost (%) 0.7 5.6 0.7/3.4 8.1 9.5

 No Impact (%) 19.5 15.1 19.5/14.1 4.6 0.0

 Net Benefit (%) 79.8 79.3 79.8/82.5 87.4 90.5

Front-Loading Standard Clothes Washer

 Net Cost (%) 0.0 0.1 1.5 45.1 29.6

 No Impact (%) 100.0 96.0 72.4 11.6 0.0

 Net Benefit (%) 0.0 3.9 26.1 43.3 70.4

Top-Loading Compact Clothes Washer

 Net Cost (%) 1.5 1.5 1.5/12.6 12.6 12.6

 No Impact (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Net Benefit (%) 98.5 98.5 98.5/87.4 87.4 87.4

Front-Loading Compact Clothes Washer

 Net Cost (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 No Impact (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Net Benefit (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Parentheses indicate negative (-) values. 

* For top-loading clothes washers under TSL 3, the first number for consumer impacts refers to the standard 

in 2015, and the second number refers to the standard in 2018.
257

** The standard level is the same as the baseline efficiency level, so no consumers are impacted and therefore 

calculation of a payback period is not applicable.

DOE first considered TSL 5, which represents the max-tech efficiency levels. 

TSL 5 would save 3.32 quads of energy and 6.89 trillion gallons of water, amounts DOE 

considers significant. Under TSL 5, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $19.92 

billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $50.48 billion, using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 5 are 179 Mt of CO2, 150 thousand 

tons of NOX, and 0.413 ton of Hg. The estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions at TSL 5 ranges from $838 million to $13,357 million. Total generating 

capacity in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 1.86 GW under TSL 5.

At TSL 5, the average LCC impact is a savings (LCC decrease) of $524 for toploading standard clothes washers, a savings of $102 for front-loading standard clothes 

washers, a savings of $312 for top-loading compact clothes washers, and a savings of $54

for front-loading compact clothes washers. The median payback period is 1.9 years for 

top-loading standard clothes washers, 5.2 years for front- loading standard clothes 

washers, 2.1 years for top-loading compact clothes washers, and 0.8 years for frontloading compact clothes washers. A significant fraction of consumers, however,

experience an LCC increase or net cost under TSL 5 for all product classes except frontloading compact: 9.5 percent for top-loading standard clothes washers, 30 percent for 

front-loading standard clothes washers, and 13 percent for top-loading compact clothes 
258

washers. In addition, because TSL 5 significantly raises the first cost of both top-loading 

and front-loading clothes washers, DOE is concerned some low-income consumers may 

be compelled to delay or forgo new purchases, using commercial coin laundries or 

repairing their existing clothes washers instead. 

At TSL 5, the projected change in INPV ranges from an increase of $255.5

million to a decrease of $1,335.3 million. At this TSL, manufacturers would have to 

overhaul both their front-loading and top-loading platforms by the 2015 compliance date 

to meet demand. Redesigning all units to meet the current max-tech efficiency levels 

would require considerable capital and product conversion expenditures. DOE believes 

that the scope of the redesigns necessary to meet TSL 5 by 2015 also heightens concerns 

over supply chain and operational risk. DOE estimates that complete platform redesigns 

would cost the industry over $700 million in product and capital conversion costs. These 

costs alone represent a substantial portion of the total value of the industry. In addition, 

manufacturers could face a substantial impact on profitability at TSL 5. Because 

manufacturers earn a premium for ENERGY STAR products and additional profit for 

products that exceed the ENERGY STAR level, collapsing the market to one commodity 

product makes it unlikely that manufacturers could maintain their base-case profitability 

on these products after compliance with the standards is required. As a result, DOE 

expects that TSL 5 would yield impacts closer to the high end of the range of INPV 

impacts. If the high end of the range of impacts is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 5 could 

result in a net loss of 51.6 percent in INPV to clothes washer manufacturers.
259

The Secretary concludes that at TSL 5 for residential clothes washers, the benefits 

of energy savings, water savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, generating capacity 

reductions, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions would be outweighed by the significant fraction of consumers that experience 

an increase in life-cycle cost and the impacts on manufacturers, including the conversion 

costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a very large reduction in INPV for the

manufacturers and the risk of manufacturer capacity constraints resulting from the 

necessary changes by 2015. Consequently, the Secretary has concluded that TSL 5 is not 

economically justified.

DOE next considered TSL 4. TSL 4 would save 2.87 quads of energy and 5.33

trillion gallons of water, amounts DOE considers significant. Under TSL 4, the NPV of 

consumer benefit would be 16.42 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $41.60

billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 156 Mt of CO2, 130 thousand 

tons of NOX, and 0.364 tons of Hg. The estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions at TSL 4 ranges from $729 million to $11,613 million. Total generating 

capacity in 2044 is estimated to decrease by 1.64 GW under TSL 4.

At TSL 4, the average LCC impact is a savings of $491 for top-loading standard 

clothes washers, a savings of $35 for front-loading standard clothes washers, a savings of 

$312 for top-loading compact clothes washers, and a savings of $54 for front-loading 
260

compact clothes washers. The median payback period is 1.8 years for top-loading 

standard clothes washers, 9.2 years for front- loading standard clothes washers, 2.1 years 

for top-loading compact clothes washers, and 0.8 years for front-loading compact clothes 

washers. A significant fraction of consumers, however, experience an LCC net cost for 

all product classes except front-loading compact: 8 percent for top-loading standard 

clothes washers, 45 percent for front- loading standard clothes washers, and 13 percent 

for top-loading compact clothes washers. In addition, TSL 4 significantly raises the first 

cost of both top-loading and front-loading clothes washers, and DOE is concerned some 

low-income consumers may be compelled to delay or forgo new purchases. 

At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from an increase of $205.0

million to a decrease of $1,256.4 million. At this TSL, manufacturers would be required 

to overhaul both front-loading and top-loading platforms by the 2015 compliance date to 

meet demand. DOE estimates that it would cost the industry approximately $692 million 

in product and capital conversion costs at TSL 4. These costs reflect substantial platform 

changes to both top-loading and front-loading clothes washers by 2015, represent a 

significant portion of the total value of the industry, and trigger capacity concerns in light 

of the magnitude and timing of the necessary changes. In addition, manufacturers could 

face a substantial impact on profitability at TSL 4. Because manufacturers earn a 

premium for ENERGY STAR products and additional profit for products that exceed the 

ENERGY STAR level, collapsing the market to a few commodity products without 

efficiency differentiators makes it unlikely that manufactures could maintain their basecase profitability on these products after standards. Because of the effect, DOE expects 
261

that TSL 4 would yield impacts closer to the high end of the range of INPV impacts. If 

the high end of the range of impacts is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 4 could result in a 

net loss of 48.6 percent in INPV to clothes washer manufacturers.

The Secretary concludes that at TSL 4 for residential clothes washers, the benefits 

of energy savings, water savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, generating capacity 

reductions, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions would be outweighed by the economic burden on a significant fraction of

consumers due to the large increase in product cost and the impacts on manufacturers, 

including the conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a very large 

reduction in INPV for manufacturers and the risk of manufacturer capacity constraints 

resulting from the necessary changes by 2015. Consequently, the Secretary has concluded 

that TSL 4 is not economically justified.

DOE then considered TSL 3. TSL 3 would save 2.04 quads of energy and 3.03

trillion gallons of water, amounts DOE considers significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of 

consumer benefit would be $13.01 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $31.29

billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 113 Mt of CO2, 94.2 thousand 

tons of NOX, and 0.269 ton of Hg. The estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions at TSL 3 ranges from $530 million to $8,457 million. Total generating 

capacity in 2045 is estimated to decrease by 1.30 GW under TSL 3.
262

At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a savings of $268 in 2015 and $366 in 2018 

for top-loading standard clothes washers, a savings of $37 for front-loading standard 

clothes washers, a savings of $159 in 2015 and $312 in 2018 for top-loading compact 

clothes washers, and a savings of $54 for front-loading compact clothes washers. The 

median payback period is 0.4 years in 2015 and 0.9 years in 2018 for top-loading 

standard clothes washers, 1.3 years for front- loading standard clothes washers, 0.5 years 

in 2015 and 2.1 years in 2018 for top-loading compact clothes washers, and 0.8 years for 

front-loading compact clothes washers. The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC 

cost is small—less than 1 percent in 2015 and 3 percent in 2018 for top-loading standard 

clothes washers, 1.5 percent for front-loading standard clothes washers, 1.5 percent in 

2015 and 13 percent in 2018 for top-loading compact clothes washers. No consumers 

experience a LCC cost for front-loading compact clothes washers. The much lower first 

cost of washers meeting TSL 3, combined with the fact that the vast majority of 

consumers experience either net LCC benefits or no impacts at TSL 3, mitigates DOE’s 

concern that some low-income consumers would be compelled to delay or forgo new 

purchases. 

At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from an increase of $96.4 million 

to a decrease of $858.8 million. For most manufacturers, the efficiency levels for toploading clothes washers at TSL 3 correspond to incremental product conversion by 2015 

and a platform redesign by 2018. These compliance dates mitigate capacity risk to 

manufacturers and their supply chains and afford manufacturers the flexibility to spread 
263

capital requirements, engineering resources, and other conversion activities over a longer 

period of time depending on the individual needs of each manufacturer. These factors at 

TSL3 mitigate DOE’s concerns about manufacturers’ ability to match production 

capacity to market demand. At TSL 3, DOE recognizes the risk of negative impacts if 

manufacturers’ expectations concerning reduced profit margins are realized. However, 

the additional flexibility of the compliance dates and range of efficiency levels above 

TSL 3 afford manufacturers room to maintain higher value products. Therefore, DOE 

expects impacts to be closer to the low end of the range of impacts.

The Secretary concludes that at TSL 3 for residential clothes washers, the benefits 

of energy savings, water savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, generating capacity 

reductions, emission reductions, the estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions, and favorable consumer LCC savings and payback period for more than 97 

percent of consumers outweigh the LCC costs for less than 3 percent of consumers and 

the conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a reduction in INPV 

for manufacturers. 

In addition, the efficiency levels in TSL 3 correspond to the recommended levels 

in the Joint Petition, which DOE believes sets forth a statement by interested persons that 

are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of 

manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates) and contains 

recommendations with respect to an energy conservation standard that are in accordance 

with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Moreover, DOE has encouraged the submission of consensus 
264

agreements as a way for diverse interested parties to develop an independent and 

probative analysis useful in DOE standard setting and to expedite the rulemaking process. 

DOE also believes that the standard levels recommended in the consensus agreement may 

increase the likelihood for regulatory compliance, while decreasing the risk of litigation.

After considering the analysis, comments on the framework document, and the 

benefits and burdens of TSL 3, the Secretary concludes that this TSL will offer the 

maximum improvement in efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically 

justified, and will result in the significant conservation of energy. Therefore, DOE adopts 

TSL 3 for residential clothes washers. The amended energy conservation standards for 

residential clothes washers, which are a minimum allowable integrated modified energy 

factor (IMEF) and maximum allowable integrated water factor (IWF), are shown in Table 

V-28.
265

Table V-28 Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes 

Washers

Product Class

Effective

January 1, 2015

Effective

January 1, 2018

Minimum 

IMEF*

Maximum 

IWF†

Minimum 

IMEF*

Maximum 

IWF†

1. Top-loading, Compact 

(less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) 0.86 14.4 1.15 12.0

2. Top-loading, Standard 1.29 8.4 1.57 6.5

3. Front-loading, Compact 

(less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) 1.13 8.3 N/A

4. Front-loading, Standard 1.84 4.7 N/A

*IMEF (integrated modified energy factor) is calculated as the clothes container capacity in cubic feet 

divided by the sum, expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh), of: (1) the total weighted per-cycle hot water 

energy consumption; (2) the total weighted per-cycle machine electrical energy consumption; (3) the percycle energy consumption for removing moisture from a test load; and (4) the per-cycle standby and off 

mode energy consumption.

†

IWF (integrated water consumption factor is calculated as the sum, expressed in gallons per cycle, of the 

total weighted per-cycle water consumption for all wash cycles divided by the clothes container capacity in 

cubic feet.

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

The benefits and costs of today’s standards can also be expressed in terms of 

annualized values. The annualized monetary values are the sum of (1) the annualized 

national economic value, expressed in 2010$, of the benefits from operating products that 

meet the proposed standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using 

less energy and water, minus increases in product purchase costs, which is another way of 

representing consumer NPV), and (2) the monetary value of the benefits of emission 

reductions, including CO2 emission reductions.54

 54 DOE used a two-step calculation process to convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized 

values. First, DOE calculated a present value in 2011, the year used for discounting the NPV of total 

consumer costs and savings, for the time-series of costs and benefits using discount rates of 3 and 7

percent for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO2 reductions. For the latter, DOE used a range of 

discount rates, as shown in 

The value of the CO2 reductions, 

Table V-26. From the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual 

payment over a 30-year period that yields the same present value. The fixed annual payment is the 

annualized value. Although DOE calculated annualized values, this does not imply that the time-series of 

cost and benefits from which the annualized values were determined is a steady stream of payments.
266

otherwise known as the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), is calculated using a range of 

values per metric ton of CO2 developed by a recent interagency process. 

Although combining the values of operating savings and CO2 reductions provides 

a useful perspective, two issues should be considered. First, the national operating 

savings are domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of market 

transactions, while the value of CO2 reductions is based on a global value. Second, the 

assessments of operating cost savings and SCC are performed with different methods that 

use quite different time frames for analysis. The national operating cost savings is 

measured for the lifetime of products shipped in 2015–2044. The SCC values, on the 

other hand, reflect the present value of all future climate-related impacts resulting from 

the emission of one ton of carbon dioxide in each year. These impacts continue well 

beyond 2100.

Table V-29 shows the annualized values for clothes washers. Using a 7-percent 

discount rate for benefits and costs other than CO2 reductions, for which DOE used a 3-

percent discount rate along with the SCC series corresponding to a value of $22.3/ton in 

2010, the cost of the standards for clothes washers in today’s rule is $185 million per year 

in increased equipment costs, while the annualized benefits are $1,234 million per year in 

reduced equipment operating costs, $141.7 million in CO2 reductions, and $5.4 million in 

reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $1.20 billion per year.

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs and the SCC series 

corresponding to a value of $22.3/ton in 2010, the cost of the standards for clothes 
267

washers in today’s rule is $212 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the 

benefits are $1,808 million per year in reduced operating costs, $141.7 million in CO2

reductions, and $8.0 million in reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit 

amounts to $1.75 billion per year.
268

Table V-29 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Amended Standards (TSL 3) for 

Clothes Washers Sold in 2015–2044

Discount Rate

Primary 

Estimate*

Low Net 

Benefits 

Estimate*

High Net 

Benefits 

Estimate*

Monetized (million 2010$/year)

Benefits

Operating Cost Savings

7% 1234 1101 1379

3% 1808 1587 2042

CO2 Reduction at $4.9/t** 5% 34.5 31.7 37.4

CO2 Reduction at $22.3/t** 3% 142 130 154

CO2 Reduction at $36.5/t** 2.5% 226 207 246

CO2 Reduction at $67.6/t** 3% 431 396 469

NOX Reduction at $2,537/t**

7% 5.40 5.03 5.82

3% 8.01 7.39 8.68

Total†

7% plus CO2 range 1274 to 1671 1137 to 1502 1423 to 1854

7% 1381 1236 1539

3% plus CO2 range 1851 to 2248 1626 to 1991 2089 to 2520

3% 1958 1725 2205

Costs

Incremental Product Costs

7% 185 258 200

3% 212 309 230

Total Net Benefits

Total†

7% plus CO2 range 1088 to 1485 880 to 1244 1223 to 1654

7% 1196 978 1339

3% plus CO2 range 1639 to 2036 1317 to 1682 1859 to 2291

3% 1746 1416 1976

* The Primary, Low Benefit, and High Benefit Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices and housing 

starts from the AEO2010

** The CO2 values represent global values (in 2010$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under 

several scenarios. The values of $4.9, $22.3, and $36.5 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions 

calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The value of $67.6 per ton represents the 

95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The value for NOX (in 2010$) is 

the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis.

Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, 

respectively. In addition, incremental product costs reflect a declining trend using the default price trend for 

product prices in the Primary Estimate, constant product prices in the Low Benefits Estimate, and a high 

estimate of the declining price trend in the High Benefits Estimate.

† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3% discount 

rate, which is $22.3/ton in 2010 (in 2010$). In the rows labeled as “7% plus CO2 range” and “3% plus CO2 
269

range,” the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values 

are added to the full range of CO2 values.

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A.

Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 

FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires each agency to identify the problem that it intends to 

address, including, where applicable, the failures of private markets or public institutions 

that warrant new agency action, as well as to assess the significance of that problem. The 

problems that today’s standards address are as follows: 

Review Under Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563

(1) There is a lack of consumer information and/or information processing capability 

about energy efficiency opportunities in the home appliance market.

(2) There is asymmetric information (one party to a transaction has more and better 

information than the other) and/or high transactions costs (costs of gathering 

information and effecting exchanges of goods and services).

(3) There are external benefits resulting from improved energy efficiency of 

residential clothes washers that are not captured by the users of such equipment. 

These benefits include externalities related to environmental protection and 

energy security that are not reflected in energy prices, such as reduced emissions 

of greenhouse gases.

In addition, DOE has determined that today’s regulatory action is an 

“economically significant regulatory action” under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 
270

12866. Accordingly, section 6(a)(3) of the Executive Order requires that DOE prepare a 

regulatory impact analysis (RIA) on today’s rule and that the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review this 

rule. DOE presented to OIRA for review the draft rule and other documents prepared for 

this rulemaking, including the RIA, and included these documents in the rulemaking 

record. The assessments prepared pursuant to Executive Order 12866 can be found in the 

technical support document for this rulemaking. [INSERT URL] They are available for 

public review in the Resource Room of DOE’s Building Technologies Program, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-2945, between 9:00 

a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281, Jan. 21, 2011). EO 13563 is supplemental to and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net 

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

advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 
271

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

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

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

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

be made by the public.

We emphasize as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies “to use the 

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

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

has emphasized that such techniques may include “identifying changing future 

compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes.” For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE believes that today’s 

direct final rule is consistent with these principles, including that, to the extent permitted 

by law, agencies adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits 

justify its costs and select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those 

approaches that maximize net benefits.

B.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 

Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law must be 

proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, 

will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As 

required by Executive Order 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency 
272

Rulemaking,” 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies 

on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its 

procedures and policies available on the Office of the General Counsel’s website 

(www.gc.doe.gov ).

DOE reviewed today’s direct final rule and corresponding NOPR pursuant to the 

RFA and the policies and procedures discussed above. Set forth below is DOE’s initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis for the standards proposed in the NOPR, published 

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. DOE will consider any comments on the analysis 

or economic impacts of the rule in determining whether to proceed with the direct final 

rule. DOE will publish its final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA), including 

responses to any comments received, in a separate notice at the conclusion of the 110-day 

comment period.

1. Description of why DOE is considering the standards in today’s direct final rule 

The reasons why DOE is establishing the standards in today’s direct final rule and 

the objectives of these standards are provided elsewhere in the preamble and not repeated 

here. 

2. Statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the standards

A statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the standards in today’s 

direct final rule is provided elsewhere in the preamble and not repeated here.
273

3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated

For manufacturers of residential clothes washers, the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) has set a size threshold, which defines those entities classified as 

“small businesses” for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA’s small business 

size standards to determine whether any small entities would be subject to the 

requirements of the rule. 65 FR 30836, 30848 (May 15, 2000), as amended at 65 FR 

53533, 53544 (Sept. 5, 2000) and codified at 13 CFR part 121.The size standards are 

listed by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and industry 

description and are available at 

www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf . 

Residential clothes washer manufacturing is classified under NAICS Code 335224, 

“Household Laundry Equipment Manufacturing.” The SBA sets a threshold of 1,000 

employees or less for an entity to be considered as a small business for this category.

To estimate the number of small businesses who could be impacted by the 

amended energy conservation standards, DOE conducted a market survey using all 

available public information to identify potential small manufacturers. DOE’s research 

included the AHAM membership directory, product databases (CEE, CEC, and 

ENERGY STAR databases) and individual company websites to find potential small 

business manufacturers. DOE also asked interested parties and industry representatives if 

they were aware of any other small business manufacturers during manufacturer 

interviews and at previous DOE public meetings. DOE reviewed all publicly available 
274

data and contacted various companies, as necessary, to determine whether they met the 

SBA’s definition of a small business manufacturer of covered residential clothes washers. 

DOE screened out companies that did not offer products covered by this rulemaking, did 

not meet the definition of a “small business,” or are foreign owned and operated.

The majority of residential clothes washers are currently manufactured in the 

United States by one corporation that accounts for approximately 64 percent of the total 

market. Together, this manufacturer and three other manufacturers that do not meet the 

definition of a small business manufacturer comprise 92 percent of the residential clothes 

washer market. The small portion of the remaining residential clothes washer market 

(approximately 700,000 shipments) is supplied by a combination of 12 international and 

domestic companies, all of which have small market shares. Of the remaining 12 

companies that manufacturer residential clothes washers for sale in the United States, 

DOE identified only one manufacturer that is considered a small business under NAICS 

Code 335224.

4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements

The one small business manufacturer of residential clothes washers covered by 

this rulemaking has one product platform. It makes a top-loading standard residential 

clothes washer that currently meets a 1.85 MEF and a 6.75 WF. The product meets the 

2015 energy conservation standards proposed in this direct final rule, but falls short of the 

2018 standard. The unit does not offer warm rinse and has electromechanical controls, 

making it likely that three wash temperatures (hot, warm, cold) are available on all 
275

settings including Normal for test procedure purposes. Thus, it is likely the unit will have 

to undergo alterations to its basic design to meet the 2018 efficiency requirements.

This company appears to manufacture its residential clothes washer with less 

automation and more labor than some of the larger competitors. To change the design of 

their current product to meet the 2018 efficiency standards, one available design pathway 

would be increasing the volume of the wash basket, assuming there is enough clearance 

within the cabinet. Increasing the drum’s radius would involve cutting slightly larger 

octagonal pieces of metal and would not be a capital intensive solution. With this 

pathway, the assembly process and fabrication time would essentially remain the same. 

This solution would also prevent the small business manufacturer from bearing the cost 

of retrofitting their manufacturing process and could result in lower per-unit conversion 

costs relative to larger manufacturers.

Based on the engineering analysis and manufacturer interviews, if two full-time 

engineers took one year to implement a larger drum radius within the existing cabinet it 

could cost the manufacturer roughly $200,000 to implement the design change for the 

2018 compliance date. If the manufacturer were to incur additional tooling costs to 

implement this change, this could lead to an additional $200,000 in capital conversion 

costs. Because the small business manufacturer already meets the 2015 energy 

conservation standards, it would have 7 years from the announcement of today’s direct 
276

final rule until it would have to make any changes to its current product in response to 

standards.

5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules 

DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate, overlap, or conflict 

with the rule being promulgated today.

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule

The discussion above analyzes impacts on small businesses that would result from 

DOE’s rule. In addition to the other TSLs being considered, the direct final rule TSD 

includes a regulatory impact analysis (RIA). For residential clothes washers, the RIA 

discusses the following policy alternatives: (1) no new regulatory action; (2) consumer 

rebates; (3) consumer tax credits; (4) manufacturer tax credits; (5) voluntary energy 

efficiency targets; (5) early replacement; and (6) bulk government purchases. While these 

alternatives may mitigate to some varying extent the economic impacts on small entities 

compared to the amended standards, DOE determined that the energy savings of these 

regulatory alternatives are at least 3.8 times smaller than those that would be expected to 

result from adoption of the amended standard levels. Thus, DOE rejected these 

alternatives and is adopting the amended standards set forth in this rulemaking. (See 

chapter 17 of direct final rule TSD for further detail on the policy alternatives DOE 

considered.)
277

C.

Manufacturers of residential clothes washers must certify to DOE that their 

products comply with any applicable energy conservation standard. In certifying 

compliance, manufacturers must test their products according to the DOE test procedures

for residential clothes washers, including any amendments adopted for those test 

procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping 

requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including 

residential clothes washers. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). The collection-of-information 

requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by 

OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved 

by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the 

certification is estimated to average 20 hours per response, including the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond 

to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of 

information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information 

displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D.

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, DOE has 

determined that today’s rule fits within the category of actions included in Categorical 

Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
278

Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and otherwise meets the requirements for application of a CX. See 

10 CFR Part 1021, App. B, B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and Appendix B, B(1)-(5). The rule fits 

within the category of actions because it is a rulemaking that establishes energy 

conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment, and for which 

none of the exceptions identified in CX B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made a CX 

determination for this rulemaking, and DOE does not need to prepare an Environmental 

Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement for this rule. DOE’s CX determination 

for this direct final rule is available at http://cxnepa.energy.gov DOE has prepared an 

environmental assessment (EA) of the impacts of the amended rule pursuant to the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the regulations of 

the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), and DOE’s regulations 

for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (10 CFR part 1021). 

This assessment includes an examination of the potential effects of emission reductions 

likely to result from the rule in the context of global climate change, as well as other 

types of environmental impacts. The EA has been incorporated into the direct final rule 

TSD as chapter 15. At the conclusion of the 110-day comment period, DOE will 

determine whether issuance of a FONSI is appropriate. If DOE issues a FONSI, it will be 

published separately in the Federal Register.

.
279

E.

Executive Order 13132, “Federalism.” 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or 

regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive 

Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting 

any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully 

assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have 

an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 

14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. 

EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy 

conservation for the products that are the subject of today’s final rule. States can petition 

DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

Review Under Executive Order 13132

F.

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new 

regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” imposes on 

Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate 

drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and 

promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Section 3(b) of 

Review Under Executive Order 12988
280

Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, 

if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides 

a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden 

reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; 

and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under 

any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 

requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in 

section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to 

meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, 

to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive 

Order 12988.

G.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each 

Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and 

Tribal governments and the private sector. Pub. L. 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 

1531). For an amended regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 

sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 

202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 

resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), 

(b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit 

Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
281

timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a “significant 

intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and 

opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing 

any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On 

March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE’s policy statement is 

also available at www.gc.doe.gov.

DOE has concluded that this final rule would likely result in a final rule that could 

impose expenditures of $100 million or more on the private sector. Such expenditures 

may include: (1) investment in research and development and in capital expenditures by 

residential clothes washer manufacturers in the years between the final rule and the 

compliance date for the new standards, and (2) incremental additional expenditures by 

consumers to purchase higher-efficiency residential clothes washers. 

Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a Federal agency to respond to the content 

requirements of UMRA in any other statement or analysis that accompanies the final rule.

2 U.S.C. 1532(c). The content requirements of section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to a 

private sector mandate substantially overlap the economic analysis requirements that 

apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order 12866. The 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the notice of final rulemaking and 

the “Regulatory Impact Analysis” section of the TSD for this final rule respond to those 

requirements. 
282

Under section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify and consider 

a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule for which a 

written statement under section 202 is required. 2 U.S.C. 1535(a). DOE is required to 

select from those alternatives the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 

that achieves the objectives of the rule unless DOE publishes an explanation for doing 

otherwise, or the selection of such an alternative is inconsistent with law. As required by 

42 U.S.C. 6295(d), (f), and (o), 6313(e), and 6316(a), today’s final rule would establish 

energy conservation standards for residential clothes washers that are designed to achieve 

the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE has determined to be both 

technologically feasible and economically justified. A full discussion of the alternatives 

considered by DOE is presented in the “Regulatory Impact Analysis” section of the TSD 

for today’s final rule.

H.

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

(Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment 

for any rule that may affect family well-being. This rule would not have any impact on 

the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999
283

I.

DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 

1988), that this regulation would not result in any takings that might require 

compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Review Under Executive Order 12630

J.

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

(44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of 

information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 

2002), and DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has 

reviewed today’s final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it 

is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001

K.

Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly 

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires 

Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects 

for any significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action 

by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and 

that: (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor 

order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or 

Review Under Executive Order 13211
284

use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy 

action. For any significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of 

any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be 

implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

DOE has concluded that today’s regulatory action, which sets forth energy 

conservation standards for residential clothes washers, is not a significant energy action 

because the amended standards are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as such by the 

Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy 

Effects on the final rule.

L.

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy (OSTP), issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

(the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific 

information shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is disseminated by 

the Federal Government, including influential scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of 

the Government’s scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are “influential scientific information,” which the Bulletin 

defines as “scientific information the agency reasonably can determine will have or does 

Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 
285

have a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector 

decisions.” 70 FR 2667.

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE conducted formal in-progress peer reviews 

of the energy conservation standards development process and analyses and has prepared 

a Peer Review Report pertaining to the energy conservation standards rulemaking 

analyses. Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented 

evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and independent reviewers to make a 

judgment as to the technical/scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, 

and the productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. The 

“Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review Report” dated February 2007 

has been disseminated and is available at the following Web site: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/peer_review.html.

M.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the promulgation of 

this rule prior to its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that 

the rule is a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Congressional Notification

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today’s final rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Parts 429 and 430
286

Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy 

conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, and Small businesses.

Issued in Washington, DC on 

________________________________

Henry Kelly

Acting Assistant Secretary

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
287

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and 430 of title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, to read as set forth below: 

PART 429 -- CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR 

CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT

1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317.

2. In § 429.20 revise paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:

§ 429.20 Residential clothes washers.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) Pursuant to §429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall include the following public 

product-specific information: For residential clothes washers manufactured before 

January 1, 2015: The modified energy factor (MEF) in cubic feet per kilowatt hour per 

cycle (cu ft/kWh/cycle) and the capacity in cubic feet (cu ft). For standard-size residential 

clothes washers, a water factor (WF) in gallons per cycle per cubic feet (gal/cycle/cu ft). 

For residential clothes washers manufactured on or after January 1, 2015: The integrated 

modified energy factor (IMEF) in cu ft/kWh/cycle, the integrated water factor (IWF) in 

gal/cycle/cu ft, the capacity in cu ft and the type of loading (top-loading or front-loading).

* * * * *
288

PART 430 - ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS

1. The authority citation for Part 430 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

2. In §430.32 revise paragraph (g) to read as follows:

§430.32 Energy and water conservation standards and their effective dates.

* * *

(g)

(1) Clothes washers manufactured on or after January 1, 2007 shall have a Modified 

Energy Factor no less than:

Clothes washers.

Product class

Modified 

Energy Factor 

(cu.ft./kWh/cycle)

i. Top-loading, Compact 

(less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) 0.65

ii. Top-loading, Standard 

(1.6 ft3 or greater capacity) 1.26

iii. Top-Loading, Semi-Automatic 1 Not Applicable

iv. Front-loading 1.26

v. Suds-saving 1 Not Applicable 1 Must have an unheated rinse water option

(2) All top-loading or front-loading standard-size residential clothes washers 

manufactured on or after January 1, 2011, and before January 1, 2015, shall meet the 

following standard—

(i) A Modified Energy Factor of at least 1.26; and

(ii) A Water Factor of not more than 9.5.
289

(3) Clothes washers manufactured on or after January 1, 2015, and before January 1, 

2018, shall have an Integrated Modified Energy Factor no less than, and an Integrated 

Water Factor no greater than:

Product class

Integrated Modified 

Energy Factor 

(cu.ft./kWh/cycle)

Integrated Water 

Factor 

(gal/cycle/cu.ft.)

i. Top-loading, Compact 

(less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) 0.86 14.4

ii. Top-loading, Standard 

 (1.6 ft3 or greater capacity) 1.29 8.4

iii. Front-loading, Compact 

(less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) 1.13 8.3

iv. Front-loading, Standard

(1.6 ft3 or greater capacity) 1.84 4.7

(4) Clothes washers manufactured on or after January 1, 2018 shall have an Integrated 

Modified Energy Factor no less than, and an Integrated Water Factor no greater than:

Product class

Integrated Modified 

Energy Factor 

(cu.ft./kWh/cycle)

Integrated Water 

Factor 

(gal/cycle/cu.ft.)

i. Top-loading, Compact 

(less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) 1.15 12.0

ii. Top-loading, Standard 

(1.6 ft3 or greater capacity) 1.57 6.5

iii. Front-loading, Compact 

(less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) 1.13 8.3

iv. Front-loading, Standard

(1.6 ft3 or greater capacity) 1.84 4.7

* * * * *