Department of Energy 

Washington, DC 20585 

April 3, 1998 

lREVISED DRAFT REPORT ON CONSUMER RESEARCH FOR CLOTHES WASHERS 

At the clothes washers standards rulemaking workshop held on March 11, 1998, participants 

requested that DOE expand the "Draft Report on Consumer Research for Clothes Washers." 

Enclosed is the revised report which now includes the major findings of the studies and projects. 

This report is available on the Office of Codes and Standards web site. The web site address is as 

follows: http://www. eren. doe.gov/buildings/codes_ standards/index. htm. 

Based on discussions at the workshop, DOE staff has begun to explore different approaches to 

obtaining additional consumer information pertaining to clothes washers. They have talked with a 

market research firm to discuss the use of focus groups as recommended by the Advisory 

Committee on Appliance Efficiency Standards. The market research firm suggested that DOE 

first conduct a qualitative survey of consumers consisting of 4 to 6 groups of 10 to 12 people in 

various location. The groups would discuss the attributes that are most important to the 

consumer in an open-ended fashion. 

Based on the outcome of the focus groups a more detailed questionnaire could be developed, and 

a quantitative consumer research could be conducted with a telephone survey of 400 to 500 

]people. An alternative to the detailed questionnaire would be to conduct a conjoint analysis 

i( conjoint analysis is a research technique that lets you determine the combination of features your 

product or service must have to appeal to a specific market or market segment) which could also 

quantify the attributes using a computer survey. 

At the workshop some utilities, who were already surveying their customers, indicated that they 

might include some questions from DOE. This could supplement any efforts initiated by DOE or 

it could be done in lieu of the focus groups. As part of any of these activity, we would like to 

develop a list of attributes that you feel are important to the consumer as a validity check. 

The enclosed report and the proposed options described above will be the subject of the 

·conference call on April 28, 1998 at 1:00 p.m. E.S.T. The call in phone number is 

(202) 287-5323. Please let us know if this time is convenient fc:>r you. A large number of people 

have expressed interest and we will attempt to coordinate the best time that is convenient for a 

majority of the people. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Bryan Berringer at (202) 

586-0371 or Qonnie Laughlin at (202) 586-9632 or by fax (202) 586-4617. 

Enclosure 

Sincerely, >}Ji !IL t'~el J. cCabe, Director 

Office of odes and Standards 

Office of Buildings Technology, State 

and Community Programs . 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

@ Printed with soy ink on recycled paper 
DRAFT 

DRAFf REPORT ON CONSUMER RESEARCH FOR CWTBES WASHERS 

April 1, 1998 

LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY 

Environmental Energy Technologies Division 

Techn.ology and Market Assessment Group . 

Berkeley, CA 94720 

Prepared for 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Codes and Standards 
DRAFI' 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

· CONSUMER RESEARCH SUMMARY .................... · ...................... 3 

1.0 IN1RODUCTION .................................................. 3 

2.0 SOURCES OF INFORMATION ...................................... 3 

3.0 SOURCES and PROJECTS .......................................... 4 . . 

3 .1 Major Studies by Consortiums . . . . . . . . ......... : . . ........ ·. . . . . . . 4 

3.1.1 THELMA ..................... · .. , ....... , .......... ·4 

3.1.2 Bern, Kansas Washer Study ............................ 12 

3.1.3 WashWise .......................................... 14 

3.1.4 Northeast Energy Efficiency P.artnership (NEEEP) ........... 17 

3 .2 Individual Utility Deinand Side Management I Market Transformation 

.Programs ..... : . · ..... · .. ·. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 

·3 .2.1 Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) - Utility Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . · 18 

3.2.2 Commonwealth Electric ................... : ........... 18 

3 .3 Consumer Publications ... · ......................... · .... ·. . . . . . . 20 

3.3.l Consumer Reports I Consumers Union .................... 20 

3.3.2 Consumer -New Zealand publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 

3.3.3 CHOICE ........................................... 21 

3.4 Trade Organiz.ations ................ ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 

3.4.1 The Soap and Detergent Association (SDA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 

3.4.2 Arthur D. Little (ADL) Report on the behalf of AHAM, 1991 ... · 23 

3.4.3 EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) Journal ............. 24 

. 3.4.4 American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Journal . . . . . . . . . . . 25 

3. 5 Government Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 

3.5.1 Energy Star Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 

3.5.2 Commercial Laundry Field Study .· ....................... 27 

3.5.3 MacDill Air Force Base .............................. ·. 28 

3.5.4 Fort Hood Demonstration Study.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28 

3.5.5 Fort Hood Government Procurement, DOD ................ 29 
., 

. .• ,: 

DRAFf 

CONSUMER RESEARCH SUMMARY 

1.0 Introduction - Presentation of Consumer Research 

Tiiis report is a summary of consumer research on clothes washers.· 

2.0 Sources of Information 

. -

Listed below are sources of information regarding consumer issues. Some programs are applicable 

to more than one general heading. 

Major Studies by Consortiums 

The High Efficiency Laundry Metering & Marketing Analysis (THELMA) 

Bern, Kansas I Maytag demonstration project 

Wash Wise - Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NWEEA) 

Northeast Energy Efficiency Program (NEEP) 

Individual Utility Demand Side Management (DSM) I Market Transformation Programs 

Pacific .Gas & Electric (PG&E, California) 

Commonwealth Electric 

Consumer Publications 

Consumer Reports (USA) 

Consumer (New Zealand) 

CHOICE (Australia) 

Trade & Professional Organizations 

Soap & Detergent ASsociation 

American Home Appliance Association (AHAM) 

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) 

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) 

Government Programs 

Energy Star Appliance Programs (DOE, EPA) - D&R International and other 

ORNL - Commercial Laundry Field Study · 

MacDill Air Force Base, DOD < 

Fort Hood Demonstration Study, DOD 

Fort Hood Government Procurement, DOD 

-3-
DRAFT 

3.0 SOURCES and PROJECTS 

3.1 Major Studies by Consortiums 

3.1.1 THELMA (The High-Efficiency Laundry Metering & Marketing Analysis Project) 

~mnson: . 

The High-Efficiency Laundry Metering & Marketing Analysis (THELMA) study is an 

Electric Power Research Institute Tailored Collaborative project sponsored by a 

consortium -of 28 electric, gas, water and sewer utilities, as well as the Electric Power 

Research Institute (EPRI) and the U.S. Department of Energy. The project is being 

coordinated through EPRI. 

Contractors: 

Hagler Bailly Consulting Inc., Phone: (608}232-2800 

Dethman & Associates, Phone: (206) 545-0717 

SBW Consulting, Inc., Phone: (206) 827-0330 

National Center for Appropriate Technology, Phone: (206) 324:-8064 

Arther 0. Little, Phone: (617) 498-5000 

Objectives: 

The broad goals of THELMA are to acquire the information necessary for leveraging a 

lasting market transformation to efficient clothes washers and to design effective incentive 

programs and other ·promotional tools for simulating the purchase of efficient washers. 

Specific objectives include: 

• . Characterii;e status ofH-axis technology. 

• Confirm savings estimates. 

• Assess customer laundering habits. 

• Identify market barriers. 

• Suggest strategies for utility actions. 

Afethodologies: 

The THELMA report includes the following volumes.(not all are currently published): 

Volume 1 : Final Research Plan 

Volume 2: Laboratory Testing of Clothes Washers 

Volume 3: General Market Assessment 

Volume 4: Distribution Channels 

Volume 5: Produ·ct Demonstrations 

Volume 6: PrOduct'Users: In-Home Interviews 

Volume 7: Product Users:_ Field Monitoring,_~- .. · 

Volume 8: Product Benefits and Target"Mafkets 
DRAFT 

Volume 9: Product Users: Further Evaluations 

Individual THELMA repoi1 vobunes, organized by tasks, are discussed below. 

Ft.rture Work: . 

Findings of the THELMA project will be published in a nine volume set. Four volu~es 

were made available to LBNL; all but the Laboratory Testing Report were draft documents. 

It is not certain when the other eight report volumes will become available to the general 

public. Additional field testing with the Neptune, Maytag was done but this report· is not 

available yet. There are currently no plans for EPRI to do additional work. · · 

3.1.1.1 THELMA Task 2.1 Final Report 

Title: Results of Focus Groups with Consumen 

Date: June 1995 

Report leader: Dethman & Associates 

Objectives: 

• Qualitatively assess the current market fe>r H-axis washers. 

• To explore consumer attitudes, rather than to measure them. 

• Identify and explore the educational needs of consumers. 

• Inform other THELMA research components. 

Nlethodologies: 

Washers: prior to introduction of Neptune (Maytag); both top-loading and front-loading Haxis washers were discussed. 

Description: Focus Groups with Consumers. · 

Date: February 6-9, 1995. 

Location: Bellevue, Washington & Concord, California 

Sample size: Four focus groups of 10 people each (2 in each location). 

Sample demographics: selected by wash loads and income 

Rebates: None 

Topics covered included: 

• satisfaction with current washer 

• reactions to H-axis washer 

• interest in buying a H-axis washer 

• consumer descriptions ofH-axis washers 

-5-
.. 

DRAFT 

Findings: [from Executive Summary] 

Barriers to Acceptance ofH-axis Washers 

..: . Awareness of H-axis waShers was extremely low among focus group participants. 

• Participants reactions were initially quite negative to front-loading H-axis washers, 

based on old associations. They also were resistant to certain features, citing . 

coneems abo~t the need to bend; leaking; child safety; and ease of use. (Participants 

wer~ sho\vn photographs of front-loading and top-loading models; information and 

diagrams that compared the mechanical action ·and cleaning technique ofV-axis and 

H-axis washers; specific details of resource and cost savings). 

• · Participants viewed. top-loading H-axis washers as a cpnf\Jsing hybrid. They also 

had concerns about specific features (e.g., double door entry; the hatch always 

rotating to the top). 

• Even when given basic information about H-axis washers, participants had a · 

multitude of questions and concerns. 

The Appeal ofH-axis Washers 

• Most participants in the focus groups said they might consider buying an H-axis 

washer if it was equal to their V-axis washer in terms of reliability, capacity, price, 

and convenience. · 

• Participants who spontaneously suggested H-aXis benefits were few in number and 

quite tentative. 

• Participants perceived that resource conservation is less important than other washer 

. attributes such a8 ease of use and cleaning ability. 

• Participants rarely mentioned energy and water efficiency as key buying criteria; 

rather, they mentioned cost, reliability, large capacity, versatility, and easy use. 

Key Buying Criteria [from Results of Focus Groups with Consumers, Draft] 

The most frequently mentioned buying criteria were: 

• Cost 

• Reliability and durability 

• Large capacity 

• Versatile features (e.g., water levels; wash speeds; temperature settings; rinse cycles; 

delicate settings; dispensers; etc.) 

• Controls that were easy to. use 

Factors that were occasionally mentioned ineiuded: ease of home maintenance; safefy 

features; gas vs. eleetricity; type of agitator; noise level; aesthetics; length of wash cycle. 

Energy and water efficiency were rarely mentioned, except in the context of selecting the 

water level to match the load size. 

-6-
3.ll.1.3 THELMA Task 2.3 Draft 

Title: Laundry Demonst~tion Center 

Date: April 1996 

Report leader: Dethman & Associates 

Objectives: . 

DRAFf 

The Demonstration Center's purpose was to introduce potential H-axis consumers to two 

.types ofH..:axis washers, and to collect their reactions to and insights about these washers. 

The primary objectives of the Demonstration Center were to assess respondent~: 

• Awareness and initial impressions ofH-axis washers. 

• Preferences for top-loading vs. front-loading H-axis washers. 

• Reactions to trying out an H-axis washers when they conducted a "test wash". 

•. Likelihood of buying an H-axis washer. 

• Questions about H-axis washers and reactions to H-axis utility pro~am ideas. 

Methodologies: 

Washers: 

• Participants were shown a top-loading and a front-loading machine, and they 

performed a test wash on the front loader. 

• Neptune washer (Maytag) was not involved. 

Description: Surveyed participants after demonstrating washers. 

Time period of surveys: November 7, 1995 to February 21, 1996. 

Location: Lynnwood, Washington (a suburban area just north of Seattle) 

Sample size: one hundred in depth interviews were conducted. 

Sample demographics: 

• Random from phone books covering neighborhoods near the demonstration center. 

• Participants who ·had some potential for buying an H-axis washer were selected.· 

• Homeowners with at least $30,000 income 

• . Currently owned V-axis machines 

• Household did four or more wash loads per week_ 

-7-
DRAFf 

·Findings: [from Executive Summary] , . 

What's Important in a New Washer? 

• Capacity (51%) . 

• Specific features such as dispensers, cycles (48%) 

• Efficiency (35%) (e.g., selecting cold wash rinse or adjusting water level) 

• Reputation/reliability (31 % ) 

• Purchase price (28%) 

Wlilat Initial Impressions Did Participants Have ofH-axis Washers? 

• One-third had heard of residential H-:axis washers; 15% had used one. 

• Just over a quarter of respondents said they would be eXt:remely or very likely to buy one. 

• Those less predisposed to H-axis washers most often cited "lack of information" as the 

reason for their negative ratings; other ".<>nce~s included front-loading issues (e.g., bending, 

- leaking) and inferior performance. 

What Difference Did Hands-on Experience Make? 

Findings are based on two specific brands of washers, and therefore, .may not apply_ equally well to 

other H-axis machines, especially findings on specific product features. 

Rf·sponse. to Front-load Washer (Washer A) 

• Perceptions on capacity changed. Over a third of participants remarked that they could have 

added ·more clothes. 

• Many asked for reliable data on the true capacity of H-axis washers, and on the relationship 

between capadty and cleaning performance. 

• About half thought the clothes wou~d get as clean and rinse as well as with their V-axis 

washer. 

• About half were unsure or expected inferior cleaning and rinsing. Respondents were 

confused about how clothes could get clean without immersion in water, or without the 

scrubbing action of an agitator. . · 

• Respondents wanted more hands-on proof about the machines' s perfonn_ance under a 

variety of real life settings. 

• Appealing features included: overall appearance, quietness, gentleness on clothes, familiar 

controls, better balance, and the convenient dispensers for bleach/softener. 

• Areas of concern included: bending to load and unload, fear ofleaks, accessibility of 

oontrols to children, and dispenser_ spills. 

Response to Top-Load Washer (Washer BJ 

This was a top-load, horizontal axis washer. 

• Said they preferred the top-loading H-axis washer in theory but preferred the front:..loading 

H-axis washer because they felt the overall design was more logical, DJOre familiar from 

laundromat experiences, and more user-fiiendly. 

-8-
DRAFI' . . 

• The majority of respondents who said they preferred a top IOader said they would never buy 

Washer B. Reaction to Washer B was dominated by negative response to-the latched 

opening used to enter the drum. as well as concerns about the machine's basic qu&Iity and 

finish. 

How Did Participants View H-axis Washers in the End? 

• Respondents were most likely to believe that H-axis washers did reduce wear and tear, but 

were less sure about their superior cl~g/rinsing ability and equivalent capacity. 

• Respondents were evenly split between those who said that the higher purchase price ($600-

$800 purchase price) would deter them from buying an H-axis washer, and those who said it 

. might be worth paying more, if the savings, superior performance and reliability ofH-axis 

washers were proven. . · . 

• Two-thirds were impressed with improved efficiency and financial savings; others wanted 

proof or thought the savings were too small. 

• The number of participants who rated themselves extremely/very likely to buy an H-axis 

. washer had more than doubled (from 28% to 67%), after the interview and test wash. 

·• Most respondents said they would need more information before actually buying an H-axis . 

washer. Respondents required proven data about the H-axis washers' track record; ease of . 

repair; efficiency/savings; cleaning, rinsirig, wear & tear; and capacity. 

3.1.1.4 THELMA Task 4 Draft 

Title: Impact Analysis · 

Date: October 1996 

Report leader: SBW Consulting, Inc. (for EPRI Retail Market Tools and Services) 

Objectives: 

To assess energy and water savings in an "in-home" environment as compared to a 

laboratory setting. Laboratory testing can provide savings estimates but must make 

assumptions about peoples' laundry practices. In-home monitoring can provide estimates 

under more realistic and diverse conditions. 

Jvlethodologies: 

Washers: Two types ofH-axis washers were used. 

• Washer A was installed in 46 of 50 sites. It is a front-loading model that was 

. officially released to the U.S. market in September 1996 by a major U.S. appliance 

manufacturer. It has a maximum spin speed of 650 rpm. 

• · .Washer C was installed in 4 of 50 sites. It is a front-loading model manufactured in 

Europe and available in the United States. Washer C requires 220 Volt service and 

only a cold-water connection because it has an internal electric water heater. 

-9-
Findings: 

• Water savings ranged from 11to74 percent with an average water savings of36 percent. 

• Energy is saved if warm or hot water is used fo.r washing or if the washer features a high 

spin speed. Average savings were 1.02 kWh/wash load. 

• Participants with-the H-axis Washer A reduced their load size by 4 percent. Those with 

Washer C reduced on average reduced their load size by 10 percent. 

• There was no significant change in the wash temperatures selected between the V-axis and 

H-axis washers. · 

3 .1 :1.5 THELMA, Final Report 

Title: Laboratory Testing of Clothes Washers, Final Report 

Date: April 17, 1997 

Contractor: Arthur D. Little, Inc. (ADL) 

Principle investigators: J Dieckmann, DetlefWestphalen · 

Project Managers: R. Gillman, J. Kesselring ~ Customer Systems Group, EPRI · 

Jhis report was a continuation of an earlier report of the same tide, published in December 

1995. Principal investigators forthe earlier report (also by ADL) are: J Dieckmann, W. 

Murphy. An additional washer not previously available was tested in the updated report. 

Objectives: . 

To test energy and water consumption and other performance parameters discussed below. 

-10-
DRAFI' 

. Methodologies: 

Washers: Number of clothes washers tested: seven H-axis and one V-axis washers. 

Washers were labeled A through H. It is believed that a prototype Neptune 

(Maytag) was included in the testing. Clothes washers could be identified by noting 

their unique specifications. 

Laboratory teStirig of washer to determine (for 8 wa5hers): 

• DOE washer capacity 

• . Hot and cold water consumption 

• Energy consumption by·the washer mechanical drive 

• DOE energy factor 

• Water extraction effectiveness 

• Effect of water extraction effectiveness on ctrYer energy 

• Soil removal effectiveness 

• Rinsing effectiveness 

• Gentleness of action 

Findings: [from report Conclusions] 

• The normal wash cycle times of the eight H-axis machines ranged between 40 minutes and 

110 minutes. The V-axis normal wash cycle required 3 7 minutes. 

• The energy factor of the H-axis machines, as measured by the DOE test proCedure, was 

approximately 95% higher than the V-axis machine that was tested (i,e., H-axis energy 

consumption normalized to the basket volume is approximately 45%·less than V-axis). 

• The average water consumption of the eight H-axls machines, normalized to the basket 

volume, is 25% less than the V-axis machine·at maximum fill level and 10% less than the Vaxis at minimum fill level. 

• The H-axis washers tested all had higher spin G's than the V-axis machine, resulting in 

measurably lower remaining moisture content (RMC). , 

• Electric clothes dryer energy decreases linearly with decreasing RMC. 

• As a group, the soil removal effectiveness of the H-axis washers, as measured by the AHAM 

soil removal test, was 50% greater than for the V-axis machine. 

• ·rhe average rinsing effectiveness of the H-axis washers was 50% greater than the V-axis 

washer. ' 

• The AHAM gentleness of action test results were comparable for H-axis and V-axis 

machines. 

-11:. 
3.1.2 Bern·/ Kansas Study 

Title: Bern Ootbes Washer Study - Final Report 

Date: March 1998 : 

Report: ORNL/M 6382 · 

·Sponsors: Department of Energy, Maytag 

Contractor: Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

Contacts:· 

DRAFT· 

.. John Tomlinson, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Phone: (423) 574-0291 

.. D.T. Rizy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

.. Linda Eggerss, Maytag, Phone: (515) 79.1-8518 

WE~b Site: www.energystar.gov 

o~~ectives: 

.. To evaluate the e_nergy and water savings of high-efficiency, H-axis washers in a community 

which bas been converted to the new design. 

.. To detefmine the impact of the new washer on customers' laundry habits and perceptions 

.. To demonstrate the findings and to develop information helpful to utilities (energy and 

water) and others with an eye towards moving the current clothes washer market to higher 

efficiency options. · 

Methodologies: 

Washers: Monitoring was done with the existing V-aXis washing machines in Phase I and 

with the Maytag Neptune H-axis washer in Phase Il .. 

Description: Demonstration/monitor & metering study. 

.. H-axis washers were installed in 105 homes in Bern, Kansas. 

.. Interviews and questionnaires were used to determine the machfues users satisfaction 

with the washer. 

Dates: monitoring took place between June, 1997 and September 1997. 

Location: Bern, Kansas~ a rural community with a population of about 200· 

Sample size: I 05 homes 

Conditions: participants were allowed to keep washers after the study free of charge 

Data collected on: 

.. impacts of load size 

.. water consumption 

.. energy consumption 

.. detergent use and consumption 

.. impacts on other additives 

.. impacts on laundry habits 

.. . . impacts on machine settings 

-12-
... .: ... 

... 

. cleaning performance 

impacts on load dampness 

impacts on drying habits 

municipal utility impacts 

DRAFI' 

Findings: [from Exea.itive S~ and Conclusions] 

• · oVerall, it was found that the changeover to the H-axis washer reduced the average water 

consumption from 41.5 gallons/load to 25.8 gallons/load - a water savings of about 38%. 

~ The H-axis washer's energy consumption including washer energy and hot water energy fell 

by 58% due to hot water savings and the impact of a highly efficient motor in the H~axis. · 

· ... The remaining moisture content of danip loads removed from the H-axis washers wa5, on 

average, 7% lower than for loads removed from participants' V-axis washers. 

... The data and subsequent analyses also showed that across all loads, temperature Settings, 

use of detergent and other additives, participants found the cleaning performance of the Haxis technology to be generally superior to their Phase I washer irrespective of its age. · 

• Participants seemed to adapt easily to the H-axis design, and laundry habits (average load 

· weights, detergent use,. how loads were dried, when loads were washed during the week, 

wash/rinse temperatures and other factors) remained largely unchanged from Phase I to 

Phase II. 

• Taken together, these findings suggest that a changeover to H-axis technology delivers large 

savings in energy and water to the customer with an improvement in.cleaning performance . 

and utility. · 

... The fraction of loads in which participants were "completely satisfied" with the cleaning 

performance increased threefold from 15 to 45% in the changeover from the average V-axis . 

washer to the H-axis washer in the study. 

... Overal~ the study showed that the changeover to the H-axis washer has little impact on the 

way in which customers washed and dried clothes. 

-13-
---- - ------- -- - 

DRAFI' 

3.ll.3 WashWise 

Title: Coming Oean About Resource-Efficient Oothes Washers: An Initial Wash Wise 

Program and Market·Progress Report- Final Report · 

. Report Number: E98-003 

Date: Janwlly 28, 1998 

Commissioned by: 

• Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NWEEA); comprised primarily of electric utilities in 

the Pacific Northwest. 

Contractors: 

• Portland Energy Conservation Inc. (PECI) 

• Gilmore Research 

• Pacific Energy Associates (PEA) 

Contacts: 

• Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance 

Tom Eckman, Phone: (503) 827-8416 

Gabriel Foulkes,"Phone: (503) 827-8416 x225 

Ben Bronfinan, Phone: (503) 827-8416 x226 

• Portland Energy Conservation Inc. (PECI) 

Lois Gordan, Phone: (503) 248-4636 x207 

• Pacific Energy Associates (PEA) 

David Hewitt, Phone: (360) 571-0497 

Gary Smith, Phone: (503) 590-4609 

• Gilmore Research Group 

Denise Bauman, Phone: (503) 236-4551 

• Oregon Department of Energy 

Charlie Stevens~ Phone: (503) 229-5625 

JJ'eb site: http://www.nwalliance.org 

Objectives: 

• To dramatically increase the market share of resource-efficient clothes washers (RECWs) in 

the program area over the next three years. 

• To influence the development and support of maximum energy and water efficiency levels 

for revised federal clothes washer standards. 

-14-
DRAFT 

Ml?thodologies: 

Washers: At the time the surveys belew were done, the Maytag,. Neptune H-axis washer 

was not on the market. Frigidaire, Staber and Europeans had horizontal axis washers · 

on the market. 

Description: This project has several aspects to it: 

• -a te~ephone survey of 419 participants/purchasers ofRECWs as part of the 

Wash Wise rebate program (a rebate program funded by utilities) · 

• . an intercept survey of 42 consumers shopping for laundry equipment 

• a telephone survey of205 appliance retailers 

· • a telephone survey of qualified representatives of nine major appliance manufacturer 

and importers of European products 

Location: J>acific Northwest; Washington, Oregon, idaho, and western Montana 

.' 

Gilmore Research conducted the following surveys: · 

• Participant Survey - those who participated in the rebate program and bought an 

H-axis clothes washer. Consumers got a $130 instant rebate and dealers got 

a $20 rebate from the sponsoring utility. · 

• Intercept Surveys-· what people thought ofH-axis washers before they became 

participants and before they used the H-axis washers. 

• Retailer Survey (dealers)- how many they think they could sell. 

• Mariufacturer Survey -. predicted future H-axis sales. 

Pacific Energy Associates evaluated the program and discussed key findings in the report: 

Coming Clean About Resource-Efficient Clothes Washers: An Initial Wash Wise Program 

and Market Progress Report.- Final Report; January 28, 1998 

This report includes analysis of: 

• reasons for purchasing a RECW; 

• satisfaction with WashWise program; 

.. product pricing and RECW cost barrier; 

• manufacturer's perception of the RECW market; 

• opportunities for increasing RECW sales. 

Findings: . 

Purchaser Survey. 

This· consisted of 419 interviews with people w~o had purchased a RECW in the beginning 

months of Wash Wise. 

• Demographics: 36% had incomes ofless than $40,000 per year, 390/o had household 

incomes between $40, 000 and $75,009 per year. 

• Main reasons for purchasing a RECW were: energy or water savings, 74%; cleaner 

· clothes, 18%; and gentler on· clothes , 15%. 

-15-
11··. 

DRAFf 

• 76% said that they would have purchased a front ioading washing ~chine even if 

the rebate was not offered. · 

• · 95% said they were at least somewhat satisfied with each RECW feature 

• 81 % said the washer was worth the price 

• · 91 % said they would recommend the ma~hine to others 

Intercept Sunreys (42 i~tenriews) 

Of the forty-two ( 42) intercept interviews conducted, thirty-two (32) were customers 

shopping primarily for top-loaders, and ten (10) interviews were with customers looking for 

tumble-action washers. · 

• Top-load shoppers mentioned "high cost" more than anything else as a reason for 

buying a top-loading washer rather than a tumble-action washing machine. 

• Thirteen (13) top-load .shoppers said they were shopping for a top-loader rather than 

a tumble-action washer because the tumble-action machines were too expensive. 

•. Customers also reported that they did not want to bend over to load 81ld unload the 

clothes (mentioned by 8 top-load shoppers). 

• Six ( 6) top-load shoppers reported that they were simply used to top-loaders. 

Retailer Sunrey (205 deafen) 

• Retailers believed that about half of the RECW purchasers would have purchased a 

standard, top loading machine if the rebate were not available. 

• If the rebate were not offered, 57% thought the demand would slacken, then pick up 

again. 

• When retailers were asked to estimate the average price of top loading machines that 

have similar capacity and features to the most popular tumble actions washers. The 

median response was $500. · 

• Retailers thought 30% of customers would be willing to pay $200 more for a 

RECW, and 50% would pay $100 more. 

• About half of the retailers believe that tumble action washers will dominate the 

market as consumers become more familiar with them. 

Manufacturer Sunrey (6 U.S., 3 lmporten) 

• Six U.S. based manufacturers of clothes washers and three major importers were 

interviewed. 

· • Manufacturers' estimates for RECW market share ranged from 2% to 25% in five 

years. 

Future Work: · . . 

Follow-up participant, consumer awareness/acceptance, appliance d.ealer, and manufacturers 

surveys will be conducted _in th_e Spring of 1998, and an evaluation/marketing report will be 

published in the second quarter of .1998 to document program success in terms of market 

indicators and program accomplishments. 

-16-
/ 

DRAFT 

3.1.4 Northeast Energy Eftic_iency Partnenhip (NEEP) 

R•ports: None at this time 

Spo11SOrs: A consortium of utilities. 

Contractors: Sub-contractor: RL W Analytics 

C;1ntact: Bruce Wall, Phone: (860) 620-0076 

Web Site: future web site to be called: www.tumblewasher.org 

Objectives: 

The market for high efficiency clothes washers will be evaluated. High efficiency clothes 

washers will be promoted. 

M'ethodology: 

Washers: Any washer meeting Energy Star performance levels is eligible; currently this 

means H-axis washers. 

Description: 

• Could characterize as a market pull program; some participants will have incentives, 

also consumer education will be done, point of sales marketing 

promotions/education. 

• Baseline market research will include: surveys, focus groups, interviews with 

retailers, intercept interviews with consumers leaving the store. ( will follow up with 

repeat interviews of the same people 12 months later, who bought or didn't buy ahorizontal-axis washer) 

Location: 

• · Currently there are 18-20 participating utilities and retailers covering S.4 million 

customers in all of New England, excluding Maine. . 

• New Jersey is expected to Join in 1999. New Jersey's 1998 program will include 

only new construction. 

Dates: Program will officially start on April 21, 1998, although some members of the 

partnership have already begun the program (e.g., Con-Electric). . · 

Rebates: Some participants will have incentives to purchase efficient washers. 

Findings: 

The baseline market re~ch is completed. It is anticipated that results of research will be 

made available to the public in the future. 

-17- ' 
·, 

DRAFI' 

3.:~ Individual Utility Demand Side Management I Market Transformation Programs 

3.:!.1 Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) - Utility Survey 

Contact: Ted Pope, Phone: (415) 973-4856 

Mi~thodologies: 

Washers: 

• Currently all ·eligible machines are H-axis. 

• The Neptune was available· in the June/July time frame. 

Description: 

• Survey questions focused on participants satisfaction with their purchased H-axis 

machines. 

• Rebate program participants responded to an 11 question survey. 

Dates: Results from April through August 1997 

Location: PG&E service territory (northern California) 

Sample size: 643 

Rebates: 

• J,>G&E had a customer program where they gave rebates to consumers who bought 

energy efficient washers. ($75-$175 rebates). 

• In addition, water utilities also provided rebates up to $75. 

Findings: 

Over 90% of participants in a rebate program responded excellent or very good when asked 

if they were satisfied with their washer. 

Future work: 

Additional survey data is being collected. 

3 .. 2.2 Commonwealth Electric - Utility Survey 

Contact: Dick Moran, Phone: (508) 291-0950 x 3548 

&f ethodo/ogies: 

·Washers: energy efficient washers 

Description: survey of participant~ In a rebate program 

Date: a rebate program has been running since September 1997. 

Sample size: 175 

Rebates: yes 

-18-
DRAFT 

· Questions relevant to ~s study include: 

• Would you have purchased this 'Washer Without a rebate? 

• Rate your washer (in comparison to old washer) in terms of ease of use, appearance, 

time to wash; and quality of wash). · 

• Have you had any problems? 

Findings: 

ResponseS have not been officially tabulated, however, responses are leaning toward easier 

to use and overwhelmingly towards cleaner clothes. 

·. 

-19-
DRAFf 

3.3i Consumer Publications 

3.~1.1 Consumer Reports I Consumen Union 

Contact: Mark Connelly, Division Head -Home Environmental Products, Phone: (914) 378-2325 

Publication: ·July 1997 issue of Co!JSUlller RepOrts magazine 

· Methodology: 

• Clothes washers were evl!luated and rated 

• Evaluates: noise, washability and features . 

• Compared 16 top-loading (V-axis) and 2 H-axis clothes washers 

• H-axis washers evaluatect were: Frigidaire FWT445GE and ASKO 8005 (compact) 

Findings: 

• "To.get the best results with front-loaders, you need to use special detergent that can be 

expensive". 

• "Little is yet known about their [H-axis models] reliability". 

• Spot checks on wear and tear didn't verify that front-loaders were more gentle on clothes. 

• The Frigidaire did not produ~ dryer clothes at the end of the spin cycle. 

• Front-loaders are generally quieter during filling and washing and a bit noisier during the 

spin cycle. 

• The two front-loaders used less energy. 

• H-axis washers handled unbalanced loads better than others. 

3.:3.2 Consumer - New Zealand publication· 

Contact: Hamish Wilson, email: hamish@consumer.org 

Publication: September 1997 issue of Consumer magazine. 

· Niethodology:· 

• Rated soil removal, spin efficiency, energy use, water use, gentleness, ease of use, cycle 

time, noise, detergent used. 

• Rated more H-axis washers than U.S .. consumer publications. 

• Tested four (4) H-axis washers and six (6) V-axis washers 

Findings: (results pre~ented in· bar chart form) 

• Overall, H-axis machines sc0r~ better on energy and water usage. 

• Overall, H-axis machines scored better on geiltlene"~s. 

• Soil removal for H-axis and V-axis were similar. 

-20-
3.:J.3 CHOICE~ (Australian consumer magazine) 

P11blication: September 1997 issue of CHOICE magazine 

Methodology: · 

DRAFf 

• 21 washing machines were rated; 7 H-axis, front-loaders and 14 V-aXis, top-loaders 

• Washers were rated/tested for: wash capacity, cycle time, noise, water used, energy 

efficiency, spin efficiency, gentleness, and dirt removal. 

Fi'ndings: . 

• Based on a combination of reasonable performance, purchase price and 10-year running 

costs, the Best Buys were the GE and a Hoover front-loaders. 

• -"Notably higher scores than the top-_loaders (V-axis) for gentleness and water and energy 

efficiency." 

• Top-loaders (V-axis) wash and spin just as w~ll as front-loaders, and they tend to have 

faster cycle times:" 

• Top-loaders (V-axis) are usually less gentle on your clothes. 

-21-
DRAFT 

3.4~ Trade Organizations 

3.41.l The Soap and Detergent Association (SDA)' 

Publication: Detergents & Laundry Additives in High-~fficiency Washers 

Ccmtacts: 

Janet Donohue, Director of Communication, Phone: (212) 725-1262 

Jane Meyer, Director Consumer Education, Phone: (212) 725-1262 

Background: 

The Soap and Detergent Association is a national trade association (139 member), founded · 

in 1926. The Association represents the manufacturers of household, industrial and 

institutional cleaning products and those companies that supply ingredients and finished 

packaging to the industry. Over 90% of the cleaning products sold in the United States are 

made by SDA members. 

M~thodology: 

Not described, however, this document relies largely on data from tumbler washer use in 

Western Europe. Powder detergent is used as the basis of comparison. · 

Summary: 

The Soap and Detergent Association made available a publication detailing information on 

detergents and their use in H-axis machines. (October 1996) 

Discussed are: 

• excessive sudsing_ 

• formulating detergents for high-efficiency H-.axis machines 

• water temperature 

• lower water volume 

• clothes-to-water ratio 

• powder detergents and laundry additives 

• load sizes . 

• amount of detergent required 

• availability of high-efficiency detergent 

Findings: 

~ High-efficie!lcy tumbler washers raise special challenges when formulating effective 

detergents and laundry additives 

a. Suds are more readily created. Excessive suds can overflow the machine or ·interfere 

with the washers' s proper operation. 

-22-
.DRAFT 

. b. · Water temperature can be lower because there is less water to heat the wash .tub and 

. the clothes. . . 

c. Lower water volume makes it more difficult to keep soils from redepositing on 

fabrics.. 

d. . Lower water volume results in a higher clothes-to water ratio. This creates a greater 

tendency for fabric dyes to bleed and transfer. · 

' e. ·Powder detergents and laundry additives are harder to dissolve in cooler and less 

water. 

• High-efficiency washer load sizes are expected to be comparable to current agitator 

capacities and load sizes, i.e., 7 pounds. 

• The amount of detergent required for effective cleaning is most closely related to the 

amount oflaundry and soil being washed , not to water volume. 

• As high-efficiency tumbler washers become more widely available, laundry detergents 

specifically made for these machines will also become available. [two brands are now 

available] 

• To achieve optimal cleaning performance in high-efficiency tumbler washers, detergents 

formulated for these machines should be used. 

3.4.l Arthur D. Little (ADL) Report on the behalf of AHAM, 1991 

Report: Financial Impact of DOE Top Loading Horir.ontal Axis Standards on U.S. Washing 

Machine Manufacturers; Appendix A: Description of Consumer Survey 

Date: July 1991 . . 

SJPonsor: AHAM 

Objective: To determine the valuation by consumers of potential top loading H-axis washing 

machiries relative to current products. 

lv.fethodology: 

Washers: side-by-side, hands-on comparison of equivalent size, top loading V-axis and Haxis washers. 

Description: 

• Loading/Unloading Demonstration· 

• Card Sort/ Conjoint Exercise · 

• Self-Administered Questionnaire 

• . Environmental Sensitivity Index (measured environmental sensitivity) 

Date: 1991 

Location: Mall locations in Denver ·and Indianapolis 

Sample size: 30 I participants 

-23-
DRAFf 

Topics covered: 

• Features relating to: adding clothing, loading method, water use and detergent use 

were examined. · 

Findings: . 

• Many consumers significantly desire the features ofV-axis ,top-loading washing machines. 

• . Many consumer do prefer low energy cost units. 

• Washing machine price is the major determinant of consumer utility or satisfaction. 

• No substantial differences in utility patterns exist between environmentally sensitive and 

· average consumers. However, low and medium income sub~groups of consumers have 

greater expected sensitivity to price .. 

• Conjoint Results (Appendix A) : Consumer preference for purchasing a washing machine 

are: 

• priCe, 49. l %; 

• energy costs, 20.3%; 

• ability to add more clothes, 11 %; 

• loading method, 10. 7%; 

• water use, 5. 6%; and 

• detergent use, 3.3%. 

• See (Appendix B) for detailed results, of the self administered survey results . 

3.41~3 EPRI (Electric Power ~esearch Institute) Journal 

Publication: EPRI Journal, November/December 1997 Issue · 

"The New Line on Laundry" by Leslie Lamarre 

Findings: 

• "Consumers also like the absence of the agitator (on H-axis machines), which frees up room 

for comforters, rugs, and other bulky items they might otherwise have to take to the 

laundromat." This is an insight gleaned from the Four-year EPRI, THELMA project. 

• At this time, 84% of consumers are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their own 

washing machines. Their biggest complaints are unb,alanced loads and clothes tangling 

around the agitator. 

•· After in-home use, tests indicated that the capacity concern was more visual than actual. 

• The biggest barrier cited to buying an H-axis machine was the higher cost of the machines. 

-24-
DRAFf . - . . . . 

3.4.4 Mechanical Engineering - Journal of the American Society .of Mechanical Engineen · 

Article title: Energy-efficient appliances 

·Author: Steven Ashley, As_sociate Editor 

Date: March 1998 

Summary: . 

• The author discusses the design of the Neptune washer (Maytag) . 

. Findings: . . 

• The Maytag, Neptune has a maintenance-free, low-noise, high-efficiency motor with infinitely 

variable-speed ·control. 

• The Maytag team solved the bend-and stoop problem by tilting.the spinner axis of the 

stainless-steel tub up 1 S de~ees and makfug the opening as large as possible. 

-2S-· 
DRAFT 

:3 .• 5 Government Projects 

3.5 .. 1 Energy Star Program 

Contacts: 

Bill Noel-Partnerships manager, DOE, Phone (202) 586-6149 

Lee Bodner-Program manager; D&R International, Phone: (301) 588-9387 

Mary Myers-D&R International, Phone: (301) 588-9387 

Jamie Treworgy- D&R IntematiOnal, Phone: (301) 588-9387 

Marc Lafrance - DOE, Phone: (202) 586-8423 · 

Background: 

Energy Star is a joint project of the U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE) and the 

. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This collaboration concentrates on educating 

consumers about the benefi_ts of highly energy efficient home appliances, consumer 

electronics, office equipment and building materials. 

Programs: 

• Demonstrating new Technologies in "real world" settings 

Example: Bern, Kansas I Maytag Washer study 

• Volume Purchases 

Large institutional buyers, such as housing authorities, are organized to pool their 

resources. 

• Energy Star Appliance Program (formerly the Retailer Initiative) 

A retailer initiative pilot program to promote high efficiency washers. The DOE will 

place "Energy Star" labels on efficient washers to help consumers differentiate them 

from other machines; making it easier for consumers to recognize efficient 

appliances. A list of energy efficient clothes washers is listed at the energy star web 

site: http://www.energystar.gov. 

• Financing Programs _ 

The DOE is also working on financing programs with Fannie Mae, and working with 

. utilities and retailers to determine the best ways to communicate efficiency benefits to 

consumers. 

• Energy Star Manufactured Homes Program 

DOE , Washington State University, and the Idaho Department of Water Resources 

are working with regional manufacturers to include high efficiency residential 

appliance, including clothes washers, in manufactured homes. 

-26-
.. DRAFT 

En,ergy Star Participants repo~ed August 97: 

• SMUD (Sacramento Municipal Utility District) 

• · Southern California Edison 

• SDA&E (San Diego Gas & Electric) · 

• Potomac Electric Power Co._· 

• · · Wisconsin Electric Power Company 

• · Wisconsin Public Serviee 

• Portland Energy Conservation Inc. 

3.5i.2 Commercial Laundry Field Study 

· · CommiSsioned by: Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with Maytag 

Contractor: John Tomlinson, ORNL, Phone: (423) 574-0291 

Sub-contractor: Ayers Associates, CH2M Hill · 

Objective: 

To measure and compare energy and water use before and after changing to an energy 

efficient clothes washer. · 

Methodology: · _ 

Washers: 10 residential V-axis washers were replaced by Maytag H-axis washers 

Description: 

• Energy monitoring and metering study 

• Main laundry room selected with 10 washers 

• · Washers average 115 cycles per month· 

Location: Tampa, Florida apartment complex with 100 units 

Findings: (Contact Tomlinson for more detail) 

. ! 

After replacing V-axis washers with H-axis washers: 

• water use was reduced by 38%, · 

• hot water use was reduced by 400/o, 

• machine energy reduced by 47%, 

• 69% were satisfied or ver}' satisfied with the cleaning performance of the V-axis 

washer, 

• 97% of customers interViewed were either satisfied or very satisfied with the cleaning 

·performance of the H-axis machine .. 

-27-
.. 

------~--~~---------;;., --------

.. .... 

3.5.3 MacDill Air Force Base 

Commissioned by: Department of Defense 

Contact: John Tomlinson, ORNL, Phone: (423) 574-0291 

Subcontractor: ~yers Associates 

. . - Objectives: [from presentation by Toiillinson on July 18, 1997] 

• Improved awareness of benefits. 

• Information dissemination to facility managers. 

• Information on load siZe. · 

• 1 echnicaJ evaluation 

Methodology: 

· Washers: V-axis large Speed Queen replaced by 5 Frigidaire, 1 Creda 

Description: · 

DRAFT 

• Energy and water use study in two apartment laundry rooms used by Army barracks. 

• Measure energy/water consumption; measure load ·siie 

• Customer impressions/habits 

Incentives: H-axis machines contributed to project by manufacturers 

Findings: (Contact Tomlinson for more detail)(from presentation by Tomlinson on Juiy 18, 1997) 

• H-axis washer (B) showed an increase in cu.ft I kWh of 190% over V-axis washer w. .. . 

• H-axis washer (B) showed an increase in lb I kWh of230% over V-axis washer (A). 

3.5 .. 4 Fort Hood Demonstration Study (metering study) 

Commissioned by: Department of Defense, Forces Command-· Department of Army 

Contacts: 

• Greg Sullivan, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Phone: (509) 372-6212 

• Graham Parker, PNNL •. Phone: (509) 375-3805 

Methodology: 

Washers: 

• Baseline washers are Roper residential washers. . 

• On premise laundry machines (like commercial washers without a coin box) .. 

• Plan to monitor Staber, Maytag, & Amana washers (a total of 18 washers). 

-28-
·• .. I 

DRAFT 

Findings: Current Status (3-23-98): 

• Have monitored/metered Roper baseline washers for two· months. 

• Are currently monitoring Staber washers and have two months worth of data. 

• Report expected in early summer of 1998. 

3.~i.5 Fort Hood GGvernment Procurement - Department of Defense 

Commissioned by: Department of Defense, Department of Army 

Suinmary: 

• Government procurement program. 

• Army bought approximately 1,200 Staber H-axis washing machines during the summer/fall of 

1997. 

-29.: