76142 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket Number EERE–2014–BT–STD– 

0021] 

RIN 1904–AD24 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Residential Dishwashers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NOPR) and public meeting. 

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 dishwashers. 

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 

notice, DOE proposes amended energy 

conservation standards for residential 

dishwashers. The notice also announces 

a public meeting to receive comment on 

these proposed standards and associated 

analyses and results. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information regarding this notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before and 

after the public meeting, but no later 

than February 17, 2015. See section VII 

Public Participation for details. 

DOE will hold a public meeting on 

Thursday, February 5, 2015, from 9 a.m. 

to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. The 

meeting will also be broadcast as a 

webinar. See section VII Public 

Participation for webinar registration 

information, participant instructions, 

and information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be 

held at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 8E–089, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. To attend, 

please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at 

(202) 586–2945. Please note that foreign 

nationals participating in the public 

meeting are subject to advance security 

screening procedures which require 

advance notice prior to attendance at 

the public meeting. If a foreign national 

wishes to participate in the public 

meeting, please inform DOE as soon as 

possible by contacting Ms. Regina 

Washington at (202) 586–1214 or by 

email: foreignvisit@ee.doe.gov so that 

the necessary procedures can be 

completed. Please also note that those 

wishing to bring laptops into the 

Forrestal Building will be required to 

obtain a property pass. Visitors should 

avoid bringing laptops, or allow an extra 

45 minutes. Persons can attend the 

public meeting via webinar. For more 

information, refer to section VII of this 

document (Public Participation). 

Any comments submitted must 

identify the NOPR for Energy 

Conservation Standards for residential 

dishwashers, and provide docket 

number EERE–2014–BT–STD–0021 

and/or regulatory information number 

(RIN) number 1904–AD24. Comments 

may be submitted using any of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: 

ResDishwashers2014STD0021@

ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number 

and/or RIN in the subject line of the 

message. 

3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–5B, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC, 20585–0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

CD. It is not necessary to include 

printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC, 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. If possible, please 

submit all items on a CD, in which case 

it is not necessary to include printed 

copies. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule may be submitted to Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy through the methods listed 

above and by email to Chad_S_

Whiteman@omb.eop.gov. 

For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section VII of this document (Public 

Participation). 

Docket: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the regulations.gov index. However, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure, 

may not be publicly available. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

found at: http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD0021. This Web page will contain a link 

to the docket for this notice on the 

regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov 

Web page will contain simple 

instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. See section VII for further 

information on how to submit 

comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate 

in the public meeting, contact Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by 

email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–0371. Email: 

dishwashers@ee.Doe.Gov. 

Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 202–586–7796. Email: 

Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule 

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

C. National Benefits 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Residential Dishwashers 

3. Residential Dishwasher Test Procedure 

History 

III. General Discussion 

A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage 

B. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

C. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

2. Significance of Savings 

D. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and 

Consumers 

a. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to 

Increase in Price 

b. Energy Savings 

c. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

d. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

e. Need for National Energy Conservation 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76143 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. 

2All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the American 

Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act 

(AEMTCA), Pub. L. 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012). 

3The average LCC savings are measured relative 

to the base-case efficiency distribution, which 

depicts the dishwasher market in the compliance 

year (see section IV.F.9). The simple PBP, which is 

designed to compare specific dishwasher efficiency 

levels, is measured relative to the baseline 

dishwasher (see section IV.C.1.a). 

f. Other Factors 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

IV. Methodology and Discussion 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. Scope and Product Classes 

2. Technology Options 

B. Screening Analysis 

1. Screened-Out Technologies 

2. Remaining Technologies 

C. Engineering Analysis 

1. Efficiency Levels 

a. Baseline Efficiency Levels 

b. Higher Energy Efficiency Levels 

2. Manufacturer Production Cost Estimates 

D. Markups Analysis 

E. Energy and Water Use Analysis 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

1. Product Cost 

2. Installation Cost 

3. Annual Energy and Water Consumption 

4. Energy Prices 

5. Water and Wastewater Prices 

6. Maintenance and Repair Costs 

7. Product Lifetime 

8. Discount Rates 

9. Base-Case Efficiency Distribution 

10. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis 

11. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback 

Period 

G. Shipments 

H. National Impact Analysis 

1. National Energy and Water Savings 

a. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case 

and Standards Cases 

2. Net Present Value Analysis 

a. Total Installed Cost per Unit 

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

a. Phase 1, Industry Profile 

b. Phase 2, Industry Cash Flow Analysis 

c. Phase 3, Sub-Group Impact Analysis 

2. GRIM 

a. GRIM Key Inputs 

b. GRIM Scenarios 

3. Manufacturer Interviews 

K. Emissions Analysis 

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other 

Emissions Impacts 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

b. Development of Social Cost of Carbon 

Values 

c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions 

2. Valuation of Other Emissions 

Reductions 

M. Utility Impact Analysis 

N. Employment Impact Analysis 

V. Analytical Results 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results 

b. Impacts on Employment 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

d. Impacts on Sub-Groups of 

Manufacturers 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

c. Impacts on Employment 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy 

7. Summary of National Economic Impacts 

8. Other Factors 

C. Conclusion 

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Residential Dishwashers 

2. Summary of Benefits and Costs 

(Annualized) of the Standards 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

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 

VII. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements For Distribution 

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule 

Title III, Part B1 of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or 

the Act), established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products Other Than Automobiles. 

Public Law 94–163 (as codified in 42 

U.S.C. 6291–6309).2 These products 

include residential dishwashers, the 

subject of today’s notice. 

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

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, 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 proposes 

amended energy conservation standards 

for residential dishwashers. The 

proposed standards, which are the 

maximum annual energy use and 

maximum per-cycle water consumption 

for each product class, are shown in 

Table I.1. These proposed standards, if 

adopted, would apply to all products 

listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, 

or imported into, the United States on 

or after the date 3 years after the 

publication of any final rule for this 

rulemaking. For purposes of the analysis 

conducted in support of this proposed 

rule, DOE used 2016 as the expected 

year of publication of any final 

standards. 

TABLE I.1—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS

[Compliance Starting 2019] 

Product class 

Maximum 

annual 

energy 

use* 

Maximum 

per-cycle 

water 

consumption 

1. Standard (≥8 

place settings 

plus 6 serving 

pieces).

234 kilowatthours per 

year 

(kWh/

year).

3.1 gallons 

per cycle 

(gal/

cycle). 

2. Compact (<8 

place settings 

plus 6 serving 

pieces).

203 kWh/

year.

3.1 gal/

cycle. 

* Annual energy use, expressed in kilowatthours (kWh) per year, is calculated as: The 

sum of the annual standby electrical energy in 

kWh and the product of (1) the representative 

average dishwasher use cycles per year and 

(2) the sum of machine electrical energy consumption per cycle in kWh, the total water energy consumption per cycle in kWh, and, for 

dishwashers having a truncated normal cycle, 

the drying energy consumption divided by 2 in 

kWh. A truncated normal cycle is defined as 

the normal cycle interrupted to eliminate the 

power-dry feature after the termination of the 

last rinse option. 

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

Table I.2 presents DOE’s evaluation of 

the economic impacts of the proposed 

standards on consumers of residential 

dishwashers, as measured by the 

average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and 

the simple payback period (PBP).3 The 

average LCC savings are positive for 

both the standard and compact product 

classes. The PBP for both product 

classes are also less than the projected 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
76144 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

4All monetary values in this section are 

expressed in 2013 dollars and are discounted to 

2014. 5A quad is equal to 1015 British thermal units 

(Btu). 

6The base case assumptions are described in 

section IV.G. 

7A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. 

Results for emissions other than CO2 are presented 

in short tons. 

8 DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to 

the Annual Energy Outlook 2014 (AEO 2014) 

Reference case, which generally represents current 

legislation and environmental regulations for which 

implementing regulations were available as of 

October 31, 2013. 

9Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon 

for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive 

Order 12866. Interagency Working Group on Social 

Cost of Carbon, United States Government. May 

2013; revised November 2013. http://

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/

inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-forregulator-impact-analysis.pdf. 

10 DOE is currently investigating valuation of 

avoided Hg and SO2 emissions. 

average lifetime of this product of 

approximately 15 years. 

TABLE I.2—IMPACTS OF PROPOSED

ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS

ON CONSUMERS OF RESIDENTIAL

DISHWASHERS

Product class 

Average 

LCC 

savings 

(2013$) 

Simple 

payback 

period 

(years) 

Standard ........... 21 9.0 

Compact ........... 8 4.5 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

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 

(2014 to 2048). Using a real discount 

rate of 8.5 percent, DOE estimates that 

the INPV for manufacturers of 

residential dishwashers is $586.6 

million in 2013$. Under the proposed 

standards, DOE expects that 

manufacturers may lose up to 34.7 

percent of their INPV, which is 

approximately $203.7 million. 

Additionally, based on its analysis of 

available information, DOE does not 

expect any plant closings or significant 

loss of employment. 

C. National Benefits 4

DOE’s analyses indicate that the 

proposed standards would save a 

significant amount of energy. The 

lifetime savings for residential 

dishwashers purchased in the 30-year 

period that begins in the year of 

compliance with amended standards 

(2019–2048) amount to 1.06 quadrillion 

Btu (quads) 5 and 0.24 trillion gallons of 

water. This is a savings of 12 percent 

relative to the energy use of this product 

in the base case.6

The cumulative net present value 

(NPV) of total consumer costs and 

savings of the proposed standards for 

residential dishwashers ranges from 

$0.23 billion (at a 7-percent discount 

rate) to $ 2.14 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 2019–2048. 

In addition, the proposed standards 

would have significant environmental 

benefits. The energy savings described 

above would result in cumulative 

emission reductions (over the same 

period as for energy savings) of 61.9 

million metric tons (Mt) 7 of carbon 

dioxide (CO2), 345.1 thousand tons of 

methane, 42.9 thousand tons of sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), 126.7 thousand tons of 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), 0.7 thousand 

tons of nitrous oxide (N2O), and 0.1 tons 

of mercury (Hg).8 The cumulative 

reduction in CO2 emissions through 

2030 amounts to 14.6 Mt. 

The value of the CO2 reductions is 

calculated using a range of values per 

metric ton of CO2 (otherwise known as 

the Social Cost of Carbon, or SCC) 

developed by a recent Federal 

interagency process.9 The derivation of 

the SCC values is discussed in section 

IV.L of this notice. Using discount rates 

appropriate for each set of SCC values, 

DOE estimates the present monetary 

value of the CO2 emissions reduction 

described above is between $0.4 billion 

and $6.1 billion. DOE also estimates the 

present monetary value of the NOX

emissions reduction is $0.08 billion at a 

7-percent discount rate and $0.17 

billion at a 3-percent discount rate.10

Table I.3 summarizes the national 

economic costs and benefits expected to 

result from the proposed standards for 

residential dishwashers. 

TABLE I.3—SUMMARY OF NATIONAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION

STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS * 

Category Present value 

billion 2013$ Discount rate 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings ........................................................................................................................................... 4.1 

9.2 

7% 

3% 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($12.0/t case) ** .................................................................................................. 0.4 5% 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($40.5/t case) ** .................................................................................................. 2.0 3% 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($62.4/t case) ** .................................................................................................. 3.1 2.5% 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($119/t case) ** ................................................................................................... 6.1 3% 

NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,684/ton) ................................................................................................... 0.1 

0.2 

7% 

3% 

Total Benefits † ........................................................................................................................................................ 6.2 

11.4 

7% 

3% 

Costs 

3.9 7% 

Incremental Installed Costs ..................................................................................................................................... 7.1 3% 

Total Net Benefits 

2.3 7% 

Including Emissions Reduction Monetized Value † ................................................................................................. 4.3 3% 

* This table presents the costs and benefits associated with residential dishwashers shipped in 2019¥2048. These results include benefits to consumers which 

accrue after 2048 from the products purchased in 2019¥2048. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to 

the standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76145 

11To convert the time-series of costs and benefits 

into annualized values, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2014, the year used for discounting the 

NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the 

benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated 

with each year’s shipments in the year in which the 

shipments occur (e.g., 2020 or 2030), and then 

discounted the present value from each year to 

2014. The calculation uses discount rates of 3 and 

7 percent for all costs and benefits except for the 

value of CO2 reductions, for which DOE used casespecific discount rates, as shown in Table I.3. Using 

the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed 

annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in 

the compliance year, that yields the same present 

value. 

** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2013$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The first three cases 

use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC 

distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporate an escalation factor. 

† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent discount rate. 

The benefits and costs of today’s 

proposed standards, for products sold in 

2019–2048, can also be expressed in 

terms of annualized values. The 

annualized monetary values are the sum 

of (1) the annualized national economic 

value of the benefits from consumer 

operation of products that meet the new 

or amended standards (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), and (2) 

the annualized monetary value of the 

benefits of emission reductions, 

including CO2 emission reductions.11

Although combining the values of 

operating savings and CO2 emission 

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, whereas 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 different time frames for 

analysis. The national operating cost 

savings is measured for the lifetime of 

residential dishwashers shipped in 

2019–2048. The SCC values, on the 

other hand, reflect the present value of 

some future climate-related impacts 

resulting from the emission of one ton 

of carbon dioxide in each year. These 

impacts continue well beyond 2100. 

Estimates of annualized benefits and 

costs of the proposed standards are 

shown in Table I.4. The results under 

the primary estimate are as follows. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

benefits and costs other than CO2

reduction, for which DOE used a 3- 

percent discount rate along with the 

average SCC series that has a value of 

$40.5/t in 2015, the cost of the standards 

proposed in today’s rule is $413million 

per year in increased equipment costs, 

while the benefits are $437 million per 

year in reduced equipment operating 

costs, $113 million in CO2 reductions, 

and $8.37 million in reduced NOX

emissions. In this case, the net benefit 

amounts to $146 million per year. Using 

a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits 

and costs and the average SCC series 

that has a value of $40.5/t in 2015, the 

cost of the standards proposed in 

today’s rule is $406 million per year in 

increased equipment costs, while the 

benefits are $529 million per year in 

reduced operating costs, $113 million in 

CO2 reductions, and $9.95 million in 

reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the 

net benefit amounts to $246 million per 

year. 

TABLE I.4—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL

DISHWASHERS

Discount rate 

Million 2013$/year 

Primary estimate * Low net benefits estimate * 

High net benefits estimate * 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings ................................... 7% .............................

3% .............................

437 ............................

529 ............................

388 ............................

462 ............................

506. 

624. 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($12.0/t 

case)*.

5% ............................. 34 .............................. 30 .............................. 39. 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($40.5/t 

case)*.

3% ............................. 113 ............................ 100 ............................ 131. 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($62.4/t 

case)*.

2.5% .......................... 165 ............................ 146 ............................ 191. 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($119/t 

case)*.

3% ............................. 351 ............................ 311 ............................ 406. 

NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,684/

ton).

7% .............................

3% .............................

8.37 ...........................

9.95 ...........................

7.53 ...........................

8.86 ...........................

9.49. 

11.43. 

Total Benefits † ................................................ 7% plus CO2 range ...

7% .............................

3% plus CO2 range ...

3% .............................

479 to 796 .................

558 ............................

572 to 890 .................

652 ............................

425 to 706 .................

496 ............................

501 to 782 .................

572 ............................

555 to 921. 

647. 

674 to 1,041. 

766. 

Costs 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ............. 7% .............................

3% .............................

413 ............................

406 ............................

468 ............................

465 ............................

371. 

361. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
76146 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

12Currently 12.1 percent of the standard product 

class and 48.1 percent of the compact product class 

are at the minimum efficiency level. 

TABLE I.4—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL

DISHWASHERS—Continued 

Discount rate 

Million 2013$/year 

Primary estimate * Low net benefits estimate * 

High net benefits estimate * 

Net Benefits 

Total† ............................................................... 7% plus CO2 range ...

7% .............................

3% plus CO2 range ...

3% .............................

66 to 383 ...................

146 ............................

167 to 484 .................

246 ............................

¥43 to 238 ...............

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

36 to 317 ...................

106 ............................

183 to 550. 

275. 

313 to 680. 

405. 

* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with residential dishwashers shipped in 2019¥2048. These results include 

benefits to consumers which accrue after 2048 from the products purchased in 2019¥2048. The results account for the incremental variable and 

fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The Primary, Low Benefits, 

and High Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO 2014 Reference case, Low Estimate, and High Estimate, respectively. In addition, incremental product costs reflect a medium decline rate for projected product prices in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate 

for projected product prices in the Low Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate for projected product prices in the High Benefits Estimate. The 

methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.H.2 of this notice. 

** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2013$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The 

first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporate an escalation factor. 

† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to the average SCC with 3-percent discount rate. In 

the rows labeled ‘‘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. 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

the proposed standards represent the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

would result in the significant 

conservation of energy. DOE further 

notes that products achieving these 

standard levels are already 

commercially available for the product 

classes covered by today’s proposal.12

See chapter 10, section 10.2 for more 

discussion of the base case efficiency 

distribution. Based on the analyses 

described above, DOE has tentatively 

concluded that the benefits of the 

proposed standards to the nation 

(energy savings, positive NPV of 

consumer benefits, consumer LCC 

savings, and emission reductions) 

would outweigh the burdens (loss of 

INPV for manufacturers and LCC 

increases for some consumers). 

DOE also considered more and less 

stringent energy efficiency levels as trial 

standard levels, and is still considering 

them in this rulemaking. However, DOE 

has tentatively concluded that the 

proposed standard level achieves the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. 

Based on consideration of the public 

comments DOE receives in response to 

this notice and related information 

collected and analyzed during the 

course of this rulemaking effort, DOE 

may adopt energy efficiency levels 

presented in this notice that are either 

higher or lower than the proposed 

standards, or some combination of 

level(s) that incorporate the proposed 

standards in part. 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying today’s proposal, as well as 

some of the relevant historical 

background related to the establishment 

of standards for residential dishwashers. 

A. Authority 

Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or 

the Act), established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products Other Than Automobiles. 

Public Law 94–163 (as codified in 42 

U.S.C. 6291–6309). The program covers 

most major household appliances 

(collectively referred to as ‘‘covered 

products’’), which includes the types of 

residential dishwashers that are the 

subject of this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 

6292(a)(6)) EPCA prescribed energy 

conservation standards for these 

products (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(1) and 

(10)(A)), and directed DOE to conduct 

further rulemakings to determine 

whether to amend these standards. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(g)(4) and (10)(B)) In 

addition, the agency must periodically 

review its already established energy 

conservation standards for a covered 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) Under this 

requirement, the next review that DOE 

would need to conduct must occur no 

later than six years from the issuance of 

any final rule establishing or amending 

a standard for a covered product. 

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, 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 

dishwashers currently appear at title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

part 430, subpart B, appendix C1 

(appendix C1). 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76147 

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)) Moreover, 

DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) 

For certain products, including 

residential dishwashers, if no test 

procedure has been established for the 

product, or (2) if DOE determines by 

rule that the proposed standard is not 

technologically feasible or economically 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)–(B)) 

In deciding whether a proposed 

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 considering, to the greatest 

extent practicable, the following seven 

factors: 

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, as codified, also 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)) 

Further, EPCA, as codified, 

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 

savings during the first year that the 

consumer will receive as a result of the 

standard, as calculated under the 

applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) 

Additionally, EPCA specifies 

requirements when promulgating a 

standard for a type or class of covered 

product that has two or more 

subcategories. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) 

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 that have the 

same function or intended use if DOE 

determines that 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. (42 U.S.C. 

6294(q)(1)) 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 

the 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 State laws or 

regulations, in accordance with the 

procedures and other provisions set 

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

Any final rule for new or amended 

energy conservation standards 

promulgated after July 1, 2010 must also 

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)) DOE’s current test 

procedures and standards for residential 

dishwashers address standby mode and 

off mode energy use. In this rulemaking, 

DOE intends to incorporate such energy 

use into any amended energy 

conservation standards it adopts in the 

final rule. 

DOE has also reviewed this regulation 

pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 

13563, issued on January 18, 2011. 76 

FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011). E.O. 13563 is 

supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms 

the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in E.O. 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, agencies are required 

by E.O. 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. 

DOE emphasizes as well that E.O. 

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 NOPR is consistent with 

these principles, including the 

requirement that, to the extent 

permitted by law, benefits justify costs 

and that net benefits are maximized. 

Consistent with E.O. 13563, and the 

range of impacts analyzed in this 

rulemaking, the energy efficiency 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
76148 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

13 DOE Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–STD–0060, 

Comment 1. 

standards proposed herein by DOE 

achieve maximum net benefits. 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

In a direct final rule published on 

May 30, 2012 (hereinafter the ‘‘May 

2012 direct final rule’’), DOE prescribed 

the current energy conservation 

standards for residential dishwashers 

manufactured on or after May 30, 2013. 

77 FR 31918. The current standards are 

set forth in Table II.1. 

TABLE II.1—FEDERAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS

Product class 

Annual energy 

use 

(kWh/year) 

Per-cycle water 

consumption 

(gal/cycle) 

Standard ...................................................................................................................................................... 307 5.0 

Compact ....................................................................................................................................................... 222 3.5 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Residential Dishwashers 

The National Appliance Energy 

Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA), 

Pub. L. 100–12 (March 17, 1989), 

amended EPCA and required that 

residential dishwashers be equipped 

with an option to dry without heat. 

NAECA further required that DOE 

conduct two cycles of rulemakings to 

determine if amended standards are 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(1) and (4)) 

On May 14, 1991, DOE issued a final 

rule establishing performance standards 

for residential dishwashers to complete 

the first required rulemaking cycle. 56 

FR 22250. Compliance with the new 

standards, codified at 10 CFR 430.32(f), 

was required on May 14, 1994. 

DOE then conducted a second 

standards rulemaking for residential 

dishwashers. DOE issued an advance 

notice of proposed rulemaking (ANOPR) 

on November 14, 1994 to consider 

amending the energy conservation 

standards for residential clothes 

washers, dishwashers, and clothes 

dryers. 59 FR 56423. Subsequently, DOE 

published a Notice of Availability of the 

‘‘Rulemaking Framework for 

Commercial Clothes Washers and 

Residential Dishwashers, 

Dehumidifiers, and Cooking Products.’’ 

71 FR 15059 (Mar. 27, 2006). On 

November 15, 2007, DOE published a 

second ANOPR addressing energy 

conservation standards for these 

products. 72 FR 64432. On December 

19, 2007, Congress enacted EISA 2007, 

which, among other things, established 

maximum energy and water use levels 

for residential dishwashers 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

2010. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(10)) DOE 

codified the statutory standards for 

these products in a final rule published 

March 23, 2009. 74 FR 12058. 

The current energy conservation 

standards for residential dishwashers 

were submitted to DOE by groups 

representing manufacturers, energy and 

environmental advocates, and consumer 

groups on September 25, 2010. 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’’ 13), recommended specific 

energy conservation standards for 

residential dishwashers that, in the 

commenters’ view, would satisfy the 

EPCA requirements. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)) 

DOE conducted its rulemaking analyses 

on multiple residential dishwasher 

efficiency levels, including those 

suggested in the Joint Petition. In the 

May 2012 direct final rule, DOE 

established energy conservation 

standards for residential dishwashers 

manufactured on or after May 30, 2013, 

consistent with the levels suggested in 

the Joint Petition. 77 FR 31918 (May 30, 

2012). 

DOE is conducting the current energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), which 

requires that within 6 years of issuing 

any final rule establishing or amending 

a standard, DOE shall publish either a 

notice of determination that amended 

standards are not needed or a NOPR 

including new proposed standards. 

Because the current standards were 

established in the final rule issued on 

May 12, 2012, publication of this notice 

within the 6-year timeframe satisfies 

these requirements. The rulemaking will 

consider any information not available 

at the time of the May 2012 direct final 

rule. The definition of the TSLs 

considered in this NOPR is discussed in 

section V.A of this notice. 

3. Residential Dishwasher Test 

Procedure History 

DOE originally established its test 

procedure for residential dishwashers at 

Title 10 of CFR, part 430, subpart B, 

appendix C (appendix C) in 1977. 42 FR 

39964 (Aug. 8, 1977). In 1983, DOE 

amended the test procedure to revise the 

representative average-use cycles to 

more accurately reflect consumer use 

and to address products that use 120 

degrees Fahrenheit (°F) inlet water. 48 

FR 9202 (Mar. 3, 1983). DOE amended 

the test procedure again in 1984 to 

redefine the term ‘‘water heating 

dishwasher.’’ 49 FR 46533 (Nov. 27, 

1984). In 1987, DOE amended the test 

procedure to address models that use 

50°F inlet water. 52 FR 47549 (Dec. 15, 

1987). 

In 2001, DOE revised the test 

procedure’s testing specifications to 

improve testing repeatability, changed 

the definitions of ‘‘compact 

dishwasher’’ and ‘‘standard 

dishwasher,’’ and reduced the average 

number of use cycles per year from 322 

to 264. 66 FR 65091, 65095–97 (Dec. 18, 

2001). 

In 2003, DOE again revised the test 

procedure to more accurately measure 

residential dishwasher efficiency, 

energy use, and water use. The 2003 

residential dishwasher test procedure 

amendments included the following 

revisions: (1) The addition of a method 

to rate the efficiency of soil-sensing 

products; (2) the addition of a method 

to measure standby power; and (3) a 

reduction in the average-use cycles per 

year from 264 to 215. 68 FR 51887, 

51899–903 (Aug. 29, 2003). 

In 2012, DOE established a new test 

procedure for residential dishwashers in 

appendix C1. Appendix C1 follows the 

same general procedures as those 

included in the previously used 

appendix C, with updates to: (1) Revise 

the provisions for measuring energy 

consumption in standby mode or off 

mode; (2) add requirements for 

residential dishwashers with water 

softeners to account for regeneration 

cycles; (3) require an additional 

preconditioning cycle; (4) include 

clarifications regarding certain 

definitions, test conditions, and test 

setup; and (5) replace obsolete test load 

items and soils. 77 FR 65942, 65982– 

65987 (Oct. 31, 2012). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76149 

14 DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that 

considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year 

period. 

15 In the past, DOE presented energy savings 

results for only the 30-year period that begins in the 

year of compliance. In the calculation of economic 

impacts, however, DOE considered operating cost 

savings measured over the entire lifetime of 

products purchased in the 30-year period. DOE has 

modified its presentation of national energy savings 

consistent with the approach used for its national 

economic analysis. 

16 ‘‘Review of Site (Point-of-Use) and Full-FuelCycle Measurement Approaches to DOE/EERE 

Building Appliance Energy- Efficiency Standards,’’ 

(Academy report) was completed in May 2009 and 

included five recommendations. A copy of the 

study can be downloaded at: http://www.nap.edu/ 

catalog.php?record_id=12670. 

The current version of the test 

procedure at 10 CFR 430.23(c) includes 

provisions for determining estimated 

annual energy use (EAEU), estimated 

annual operating cost (EAOC), and 

water consumption expressed in gal/

cycle. Because appendix C is now 

obsolete, DOE proposes to delete it in 

this rulemaking and re-designate 

appendix C1 as appendix C. 

III. General Discussion 

A. Product Classes and Scope of 

Coverage 

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 justifies a different 

standard. In making a determination 

whether a performance-related feature 

justifies a different standard, DOE must 

consider such factors as the utility to the 

consumer of the feature and other 

factors DOE determines are appropriate. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) 

Existing energy conservation 

standards divide residential 

dishwashers into two product classes 

based on capacity (i.e., the number of 

place settings and serving pieces that 

can be loaded in the product as 

specified in American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI)/Association 

of Home Appliance Manufacturers 

(AHAM) Standard DW–1–2010, 

Household Electric Dishwashers): 

• Standard (capacity equal to or 

greater than eight place settings plus six 

serving pieces); and 

• Compact (capacity less than eight 

place settings plus six serving pieces). 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to 

maintain the existing standard and 

compact product classes for residential 

dishwashers. Based on a survey of 

products available on the market, DOE 

determined that compact residential 

dishwashers provide unique utility by 

means of their countertop or drawer 

configurations. 

B. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

In each energy conservation standards 

rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening 

analysis based on information gathered 

on all current technology options and 

working 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. As defined in 

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 

section 4(a)(4)(i), DOE considers 

technologies incorporated in 

commercially available products or in 

working prototypes to be 

technologically feasible. 

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, and service; (2) 

adverse impacts on product utility or 

availability; and (3) adverse impacts on 

health or safety. 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart C, appendix A, section 

4(a)(4)(ii)–(iv). Section IV.B of this 

NOPR discusses the results of the 

screening analysis for residential 

dishwashers, particularly the designs 

DOE considered, those it screened out, 

and those that are the basis for the TSLs 

in this rulemaking. For further details 

on the screening analysis for this 

rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the NOPR 

Technical Support Document (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 dishwashers, 

using the design parameters for the most 

efficient products available on the 

market or in working prototypes. (See 

chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.) The maxtech levels that DOE determined for this 

rulemaking are described in section 

IV.C.1.b of this proposed rule. 

C. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

For each TSL, DOE projected energy 

savings from the residential 

dishwashers that are the subject of this 

rulemaking purchased in the 30-year 

period that begins in the expected year 

of compliance with any amended 

standards (2019–2048).14 The savings 

are measured over the entire lifetime of 

residential dishwashers purchased in 

the 30-year analysis period.15 DOE 

quantified the energy savings 

attributable to each TSL as the 

difference in energy consumption 

between each standards case and the 

base case. The base case represents a 

projection of energy consumption in the 

absence of amended mandatory 

efficiency standards, and it considers 

market forces and policies that affect 

demand for more efficient products. 

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. The NIA spreadsheet 

model (described in section IV.H of this 

NOPR) calculates energy savings in site 

energy, which is the energy directly 

consumed by products at the locations 

where they are used. For electricity, 

DOE reports national energy savings in 

terms of the savings in the energy that 

is used to generate and transmit the site 

electricity. To calculate this quantity, 

DOE derives annual conversion factors 

from the model used to prepare the 

Energy Information Administration’s 

(EIA) most recent Annual Energy 

Outlook (AEO). The AEO used for this 

rulemaking is AEO 2014. 

DOE has begun to also estimate fullfuel-cycle (FFC) energy savings, as 

discussed in DOE’s statement of policy 

and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 

51281 (Aug. 18, 2011), as amended at 77 

FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). The FFC 

metric includes the energy consumed in 

extracting, processing, and transporting 

primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, 

petroleum fuels), and thus presents a 

more complete picture of the impacts of 

energy efficiency standards. DOE’s 

evaluation of FFC savings resulted in 

part by the National Academy of 

Science’s (NAS) report on FFC 

measurement approaches for DOE’s 

Appliance Standards Program.16 The 

FFC methodology estimates how much 

additional energy, and in turn how 

many tons of emissions, may be 

displaced if the estimated quantity of 

energy was not consumed by the 

residential dishwashers covered in this 

rulemaking. For more information on 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
76150 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.1 

of this NOPR. 

2. Significance of Savings 

To adopt more-stringent standards for 

a covered product, DOE must determine 

that such action would result in 

‘‘significant’’ energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B)) 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 

the context of EPCA to be savings that 

were not ‘‘genuinely trivial.’’ The energy 

savings for today’s proposed standards 

(presented in section V.B.3.a of this 

notice) are nontrivial, and, therefore, 

DOE considers them ‘‘significant’’ 

within the meaning of section 325 of 

EPCA. 

D. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

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 a 

potential amended standard on 

manufacturers, DOE conducts a 

manufacturer impact analysis (MIA), as 

discussed in section IV.J of this notice. 

DOE first uses an annual cash-flow 

approach to determine the quantitative 

impacts. This step includes both a shortterm 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 period. The industrywide impacts analyzed include 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 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 LCC and PBP associated with new or 

amended standards. These measures are 

discussed further in the following 

section. For consumers in the aggregate, 

DOE also calculates the national net 

present value of the economic impacts 

applicable to a particular rulemaking. 

DOE also evaluates the LCC impacts of 

potential standards on identifiable 

subgroups of consumers that may be 

affected disproportionately by a national 

standard. 

a. Savings in Operating Costs Compared 

To Increase in Price 

EPCA requires DOE to consider the 

savings in operating costs throughout 

the estimated average life of the covered 

product compared to any increases in 

the price of the covered product that are 

likely to result from the imposition of 

the standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this 

comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis. 

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. 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. For its analysis, 

DOE assumes that consumers will 

purchase the covered products in the 

first year of compliance with amended 

standards. 

The LCC savings for the considered 

efficiency levels are calculated relative 

to a base case that reflects projected 

market trends in the absence of 

amended standards. DOE’s LCC and 

PBP analysis is discussed in further 

detail in section IV.F of this NOPR. 

b. Energy Savings 

Although significant conservation of 

energy is a separate statutory 

requirement for adopting 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)) 

As discussed in section IV.H.1 of this 

NOPR, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet to 

project national energy savings. 

c. 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 evaluates standards that would not 

lessen the utility or performance of the 

considered products. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data from 

internal testing and the availability of 

products on the market, DOE has 

determined that the standards proposed 

in this NOPR would not reduce the 

utility or performance of the products 

under consideration in this rulemaking. 

d. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

EPCA directs DOE to consider the 

impact of any lessening of competition, 

as determined in writing by the 

Attorney General, that is likely to result 

from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the 

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 proposed 

rule, together with an analysis of the 

nature and extent of the impact. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will 

transmit a copy of this proposed rule to 

the Attorney General with a request that 

the Department of Justice (DOJ) provide 

its determination on this issue. DOE 

will address the Attorney General’s 

determination in the final rule. 

e. Need for National Energy 

Conservation 

In evaluating the need for national 

energy conservation, DOE expects that 

the energy savings from the proposed 

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 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. 

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 emissions 

impacts from today’s standards, and 

from each TSL it considered, in section 

V.B.6 of this NOPR. DOE also reports 

estimates of the economic value of 

emissions reductions resulting from the 

considered TSLs, as discussed in 

section IV.L of this NOPR. 

f. 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76151 

17EIA 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.) 

be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

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 savings in energy 

(and water, if applicable) resulting from 

the standard, as calculated under the 

applicable DOE test procedure. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) DOE’s LCC and 

PBP analyses generate values used to 

calculate the effects that proposed 

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 

rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, 

DOE routinely conducts the required 

economic analysis that considers the 

full range of impacts to consumers, 

manufacturers, the nation, and the 

environment. (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 

proposed rule. 

IV. Methodology and Discussion 

DOE used two spreadsheet tools to 

estimate the impact of this NOPR. 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 

efficiency standards on national energy 

savings and net present value. The two 

spreadsheets are available online at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/

rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=106. 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 dishwashers. 

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://

www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview/. 

The version of NEMS used for 

appliance standards analysis, which 

makes minor modifications to the AEO 

version, is called NEMS–BT.17 NEMS– 

BT accounts for the interactions among 

the various energy supply and demand 

sectors and the economy as a whole. 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

DOE develops information in the 

market and technology assessment that 

provides an overall picture of the 

market for the products concerned, 

including the purpose of the products, 

the industry structure, manufacturers, 

market characteristics, and technologies 

used in the products. 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 

residential dishwasher rulemaking 

include: (1) Scope and product classes; 

(2) manufacturers and industry 

structure; (3) existing efficiency 

programs; (4) shipments information; (5) 

market and industry trends; and (6) 

technologies that could improve the 

energy efficiency of residential 

dishwashers. The key findings of DOE’s 

market assessment are summarized 

below. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD 

for further discussion of the market and 

technology assessment. 

1. Scope and Product Classes 

In 10 CFR 430.2, DOE defines 

dishwasher as ‘‘a cabinet-like appliance 

which with the aid of water and 

detergent, washes, rinses, and dries 

(when a drying process is included) 

dishware, glassware, eating utensils, 

and most cooking utensils by chemical, 

mechanical and/or electrical means and 

discharges to the plumbing drainage 

system.’’ 

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 justify a different standard. 

In making a determination whether a 

performance-related feature justifies a 

different standard, DOE must consider 

such factors as the utility to the 

consumer of the feature and other 

factors DOE determines are appropriate. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) For this rulemaking, 

DOE proposes to maintain the scope of 

coverage as defined by its current 

regulations for residential dishwashers, 

which include two product classes 

based on capacity as specified in ANSI/ 

AHAM Standard DW–1–2010: 

• Compact (capacity less than eight 

place settings plus six serving pieces); 

and 

• Standard (capacity equal to or 

greater than eight place settings plus six 

serving pieces). 

2. Technology Options 

DOE identified 16 technology options 

that would be expected to improve the 

efficiency of residential dishwashers: 

condensation drying; control strategies; 

fan or jet drying; flow-through heating; 

improved fill control; finer filters; 

increased motor efficiency; optimized 

spray-arm geometry; increased 

insulation; low standby-loss electronic 

controls; microprocessor controls 

(including soil-sensing controls); 

modified sump geometry, with and 

without dual pumps; reduced inlet 

water temperature; supercritical carbon 

dioxide washing; ultrasonic washing; 

and variable washing pressures and 

flow rates. 

After identifying all potential 

technology options for improving the 

efficiency of residential dishwashers, 

DOE performed the screening analysis 

(see section IV.B of this notice and 

chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD) on these 

technologies to determine which to 

consider further in the analysis and 

which to eliminate. 

B. Screening Analysis 

DOE uses the following four screening 

criteria to determine which technology 

options are suitable for further 

consideration in an energy conservation 

standards rulemaking: 

1. Technological feasibility. 

Technologies that are not incorporated 

in commercial products or in working 

prototypes will not be considered 

further. 

2. Practicability to manufacture, 

install, and service. If it is determined 

that mass production and reliable 

installation and servicing of a 

technology in commercial products 

could not be achieved on the scale 

necessary to serve the relevant market at 

the time of the compliance date of the 

standard, then that technology will not 

be considered further. 

3. Impacts on product utility or 

product availability. If it is determined 

that a technology would have significant 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
76152 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

18The current Federal energy conservation 

standards went into effect on May 30, 2013. 

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 be considered 

further. 

4. Adverse impacts on health or 

safety. If it is determined that a 

technology would have significant 

adverse impacts on health or safety, it 

will not be considered further. 

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 

4(a)(4) and 5(b). 

In sum, if DOE determines that a 

technology, or a combination of 

technologies, fails to meet one or more 

of the above four criteria, it will be 

excluded from further consideration in 

the engineering analysis. The reasons 

for eliminating any technology are 

discussed below. 

1. Screened-Out Technologies 

Reduced Inlet-Water Temperature 

Reduced inlet-water temperature 

requires that residential dishwashers tap 

the cold water line for their water 

supply. Because most residential 

dishwashers in the United States tap the 

hot water line, this design option would 

require significant alteration of existing 

residential dishwasher installations to 

accommodate newly purchased units 

incorporating this design option. 

Therefore, DOE believes that it would 

not be practicable to install this 

technology on the scale necessary to 

serve the relevant market at the time of 

the effective date of an amended 

standard. 

Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Washing 

Supercritical carbon dioxide washing, 

which uses supercritical carbon dioxide 

instead of conventional detergent and 

water to wash dishes, has been 

researched but has not been 

implemented in commercially available 

dishwashers. Thus, 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. Furthermore, because this 

technology has not progressed beyond 

the research stage, it is not yet possible 

to assess whether it will have any 

adverse impacts on equipment utility to 

consumers or equipment availability, or 

any adverse impacts on consumers’ 

health or safety. 

Ultrasonic Washing 

A residential dishwasher using 

ultrasonic waves to generate a cleaning 

mist was produced for the Japanese 

market in 2002. However, this model is 

no longer available on the market. 

Available information indicates that the 

use of a mist with ion generation instead 

of water with detergent would decrease 

cleaning performance, impacting 

consumer utility. 

Ultrasonic dishwashing based upon 

soiled-dish immersion in a fluid that is 

then excited by ultrasonic waves has not 

been demonstrated. In an immersionbased ultrasonic dishwasher, standing 

ultrasonic waves within the washing 

cavity and the force of bubble cavitation 

implosion can damage fragile dishware. 

Because no manufacturers currently 

produce ultrasonic dishwashers, it is 

impossible to assess whether this design 

option would have any impacts on 

consumers’ health or safety, or product 

availability. 

2. Remaining Technologies 

Through a review of each technology, 

DOE found that all of the other 

identified technologies met all four 

screening criteria to be examined further 

in DOE’s analysis. In summary, DOE did 

not screen out the following technology 

options: condensation drying; control 

strategies; fan or jet drying; flowthrough heating; improved fill control; 

finer filters; increased motor efficiency; 

optimized spray-arm geometry; 

increased insulation; low standby-loss 

electronic controls; microprocessor 

controls (including soil-sensing 

controls); modified sump geometry, 

with and without dual pumps; and 

variable washing pressures and flow 

rates. 

All of these technology options are 

technologically feasible, given that the 

evaluated technologies are being used in 

commercially available products or 

working prototypes. Therefore, all of the 

energy conservation levels evaluated in 

this notice are technologically feasible. 

DOE also finds that all of the remaining 

technology options also meet the other 

screening criteria (i.e., practicable to 

manufacture, install, and service and do 

not result in adverse impacts on 

consumer utility, product availability, 

health, or safety). For additional details, 

see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD. 

C. Engineering Analysis 

In the engineering analysis DOE 

establishes the relationship between the 

manufacturer production cost (MPC) 

and improved residential dishwasher 

efficiency. This relationship serves as 

the basis for cost-benefit calculations for 

individual consumers, manufacturers, 

and the nation. DOE typically structures 

the engineering analysis using one of 

three approaches: (1) Design option; (2) 

efficiency level; or (3) reverse 

engineering (or cost assessment). The 

design-option approach involves adding 

the estimated cost and associated 

efficiency of various efficiencyimproving design changes to the 

baseline to model different levels of 

efficiency. The efficiency-level 

approach uses estimates of costs and 

efficiencies of products available on the 

market at distinct efficiency levels to 

develop the cost-efficiency relationship. 

The reverse-engineering approach 

involves testing products for efficiency 

and determining cost from a detailed 

bill of materials (BOM) derived from 

reverse engineering representative 

products. 

For this analysis, DOE relied on a 

hybrid approach of the three methods. 

DOE selected units available at each of 

the analyzed efficiency levels to develop 

a detailed BOM for each product, 

similar to the reverse-engineering 

approach. However, DOE did not 

assume the costs derived from the 

BOMs represented the MPC at each 

efficiency level. DOE used the design 

option approach to add features that can 

improve efficiency to the baseline BOM 

to estimate the MPC at higher efficiency 

levels, similar to the design-option 

approach. For residential dishwashers, 

it is difficult to assign a specific energy 

or water savings to a particular design 

option. DOE observed the sets of design 

options incorporated into units 

available on the market at each 

efficiency level to assign design options 

to each of the analyzed efficiency levels, 

similar to the efficiency-level approach. 

Using this hybrid approach, DOE 

developed the relationship between 

MPC and residential dishwasher 

efficiency. 

This section provides more detail on 

how DOE selected the efficiency levels 

used for its analysis and developed the 

MPC at each efficiency level. Chapter 5 

of the NOPR TSD contains further 

description of the engineering analysis. 

1. Efficiency Levels 

a. Baseline Efficiency Levels 

A baseline unit is a unit that just 

meets current Federal energy 

conservation standards and provides 

basic consumer utility.18 DOE identified 

products available on the market rated 

at the current energy conservation 

standards levels (see Table IV.1 below). 

Accordingly, DOE analyzed these 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76153 

19 Information on the ENERGY STAR program can 

be found at energystar.gov. 

20The draft specification document is available at 

https://www.energystar.gov/products/specs/sites/

products/files/ES_Draft_2_V5.0_Dishwashers_

Specification.pdf. DOE notes that this level was 

removed from the Final V5.0 Dishwashers 

Specification, and subsequent specification 

versions 5.1 and 5.2; however, the energy and water 

consumption represent a technically feasible 

efficiency level beyond the current ENERGY STAR 

criteria. 

21 DOE notes that a standard residential 

dishwasher is available with rated annual energy 

consumption of 171 kWh/year and water 

consumption of 4.1 gal/cycle. These ratings are 

based on a cold-water connection, which DOE 

eliminated from consideration as a technology 

option in the screening analysis. 

22 DOE’s Compliance Certification Database is 

accessible at http://www.regulations.doe.gov/

certification-data/. 

23Units certified using a cold-water connection 

removed. Database accessed on May 22, 2014. 

products as baseline units. DOE uses the 

baseline unit for comparison in several 

phases of the NOPR analyses, including 

the engineering analysis, LCC analysis, 

PBP analysis, and NIA. To determine 

energy savings that will result from an 

amended energy conservation standard, 

DOE compares energy use at each of the 

higher energy efficiency levels to the 

energy consumption of the baseline 

unit. Similarly, to determine the 

changes in price to the consumer that 

will result from an amended energy 

conservation standard, DOE compares 

the price of a unit at each higher 

efficiency level to the price of a unit at 

the baseline. Additional details on the 

selection of baseline units may be found 

in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

Table IV.1 presents the baseline levels 

identified for each residential 

dishwasher product class. 

TABLE IV.1—BASELINE EFFICIENCY

LEVELS

Product class 

Annual energy use 

(kWh/year) 

Per-cycle 

water consumption 

(gal/cycle) 

Standard ........... 307 5.0 

Compact ........... 222 3.5 

b. Higher Energy Efficiency Levels 

Table IV.2 shows the efficiency levels 

DOE selected for standard residential 

dishwashers in this NOPR analysis. 

TABLE IV.2—RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHER EFFICIENCY LEVELS— 

STANDARD PRODUCT CLASS

Efficiency level 

Annual energy use 

(kWh/year) 

Per-cycle 

water consumption 

(gal/cycle) 

0—Baseline ...... 307 5.00 

1 ........................ 295 4.25 

2 ........................ 280 3.50 

3 ........................ 234 3.10 

4—Max-Tech .... 180 2.22 

For standard residential dishwashers, 

DOE selected efficiency levels according 

to key levels identified in other 

efficiency programs and based on 

availability of products on the market. 

Efficiency Level 1 corresponds to the 

existing ENERGY STAR19 criteria for 

standard residential dishwashers. 

Efficiency Level 2 corresponds to 

potential ENERGY STAR criteria 

identified during the process of setting 

the current ENERGY STAR criteria. This 

level was included in the Draft 2 V5.0 

Dishwashers Specification, released on 

February 3, 2011.20 Efficiency Level 3 is 

a gap-fill level developed as described 

below. Efficiency Level 4 is the maxtech efficiency level, as defined by the 

maximum available technology that 

DOE identified on the market at the time 

of its analysis. DOE did not identify any 

working prototypes that were more 

efficient than this maximum available 

technology.21

To determine the appropriate 

Efficiency Level 3, DOE surveyed the 

products currently available on the 

market in the United States. DOE’s 

Compliance Certification Database 22

contains standard residential 

dishwasher models with a range of rated 

annual energy consumption and percycle water consumption between the 

max-tech and baseline. However, after 

removing products certified using a 

cold-water connection, which DOE 

screened out as a technology option as 

discussed in section IV.B of this NOPR, 

DOE observed that very few products 

are available with rated annual energy 

consumption below 234 kWh/year and 

per-cycle water consumption below 3.1 

gal/cycle. Figure IV.1 shows the 

distribution of standard residential 

dishwashers included in DOE’s 

Compliance Certification Database, after 

removing models certified using a coldwater connection. DOE developed 

efficiency level 3 based on this 

distribution. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
76154 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

24 Information on the ENERGY STAR 

specification is available at: https://

www.energystar.gov/products/specs/residential_

dishwasher_specification_version_6_0_pd. 

Table IV.3 shows the efficiency levels 

DOE considered for compact residential 

dishwashers in this NOPR analysis. 

TABLE IV.3—RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHER EFFICIENCY LEVELS—COMPACT PRODUCT CLASS

Efficiency 

Level 

Annual energy 

use 

(kWh/year) 

Per-cycle 

water consumption 

(gal/cycle) 

0—Baseline 222 3.50 

1 ................ 203 3.10 

2—MaxTech ...... 141 2.00 

Based on basic model numbers listed 

in DOE’s Compliance Certification 

Database, DOE expects that fewer than 

10 individual compact basic models are 

currently available on the market. The 

majority of models included in the 

Compliance Certification Database are 

also rated either at the baseline or maxtech efficiency level. In the ENERGY 

STAR Draft 2 Version 6.0 Residential 

Dishwasher Specification 24, however, 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

proposed eligibility criteria for compact 

residential dishwashers consistent with 

Efficiency Level 1 shown in Table IV.3. 

As part of its proposal, ENERGY STAR 

discussed feasible energy and water 

improvements for compact products 

with manufacturers. ENERGY STAR’s 

supporting analysis included the 

expected design options manufacturers 

would use to reach this intermediate 

efficiency level. Accordingly, DOE 

considered the proposed compact 

ENERGY STAR criteria as an efficiency 

level in this analysis. Efficiency Level 2 

is the maximum available efficiency 

level, as defined by the maximum 

available technology that DOE could 

identify on the market at the time of its 

analysis. DOE did not identify any 

working prototypes that were more 

efficient than the maximum available 

technology. 

2. Manufacturer Production Cost 

Estimates 

Based on product teardowns and cost 

modeling, DOE developed overall costefficiency relationships for the standard 

and compact residential dishwasher 

product classes. DOE selected products 

covering the range of efficiencies 

available on the market for the teardown 

analysis. During the teardown process, 

DOE created detailed BOMs that 

included all components and processes 

used to manufacture the products. DOE 

used the BOMs from the teardowns as 

an input to a cost model, which was 

used to calculate the MPC for each 

product torn down. 

As discussed earlier in this section, 

DOE used a hybrid approach of the 

design-option, efficiency-level, and 

reverse-engineering approaches in this 

engineering analysis. During the 

teardown process, DOE observed the 

combinations of design options 

manufacturers used to reach higher 

efficiency levels. Using the BOMs from 

the products torn down, DOE 

constructed typical BOMs for each 

efficiency level to estimate the MPC 

based on the expected combinations of 

design options at each efficiency level. 

Table IV.4 and Table IV.5 show the 

incremental MPCs for each of the 

analyzed residential dishwasher 

efficiency levels compared to the 

baseline efficiency level MPC. For 

additional details, see chapter 5 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

TABLE IV.4—COST-EFFICIENCY RELATIONSHIP FOR STANDARD RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS

Efficiency level 

Annual energy 

use 

(kWh/year) 

Per-cycle 

water consumption 

(gal/cycle) 

Incremental 

manufacturer 

production 

cost 

(2013$) 

0—Baseline .................................................................................................................................. 307 5.00 $ - 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19DE14.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76155 

25U.S. Census, 2007 Annual Retail Trade Survey 

(ARTS), Electronics and Appliance Stores sectors. 

26For the dishwasher standards rulemaking, DOE 

estimated consumer usage (cycles per year) to 

establish dishwasher annual energy use within the 

life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) 

analysis. To estimate average dishwasher usage, 

DOE utilized a 2001 Arthur D. Little (ADL) report 

that focused solely on dishwashers. Information 

from the ADL report was used to determine an 

average usage of 215 cycles per year. DOE used the 

Residential Energy Consumption Survey 2009 

(RECS 2009) to characterize household variability of 

dishwasher usage. 

27Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures 

for Residential Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, and 

Conventional Cooking Products. Available at 

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/05/

25/2012-11155/energy-conservation-program-testprocedures-for-residential-dishwashersdehumidifiers-and#h-58. 28The water heater temperature rise of 70 °F 

assumes an average water heater inlet temperature 

of 50 °F, as specified as the national average in the 

dishwasher test procedure. 29The recovery efficiency indicates how efficient 

a water heater is at heating water. The DOE test 

procedure for dishwashers specifies a recovery 

efficiency of 0.80 for gas-fired water heating and 

0.78 for oil-fired water heating, which is 

representative of gas and oil water heaters currently 

in the housing stock. 

TABLE IV.4—COST-EFFICIENCY RELATIONSHIP FOR STANDARD RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS—Continued 

Efficiency level 

Annual energy 

use 

(kWh/year) 

Per-cycle 

water consumption 

(gal/cycle) 

Incremental 

manufacturer 

production 

cost 

(2013$) 

1 ................................................................................................................................................... 295 4.25 $ 9.52 

2 ................................................................................................................................................... 280 3.50 $ 36.53 

3 ................................................................................................................................................... 234 3.10 $ 74.72 

4—Max-Tech ............................................................................................................................... 180 2.22 $ 74.72 

TABLE IV.5—COST-EFFICIENCY RELATIONSHIP FOR COMPACT RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS

Efficiency level 

Annual energy 

use 

(kWh/year) 

Per-Cycle 

Water Consumption 

(gal/cycle) 

Incremental 

manufacturer 

production 

cost 

(2013$) 

0—Baseline .................................................................................................................................. 222 3.50 $ - 

1 ................................................................................................................................................... 203 3.10 $ 8.01 

2—Max-Tech ............................................................................................................................... 141 2.00 $ 21.50 

D. Markups Analysis 

The markups analysis develops 

appropriate markups in the distribution 

chain to convert the MPC estimates 

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 

residential dishwashers, the main 

parties in the distribution chain are 

manufacturers and retailers. 

The manufacturer markup converts 

MPC to manufacturer selling price 

(MSP). 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 dishwashers. 

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 

MSP 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.25

Chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD provides 

details on DOE’s development of 

markups for residential dishwashers. 

E. Energy and Water Use Analysis 

DOE’s energy and water use analysis 

estimated the range of energy and water 

use of residential dishwashers in the 

field, 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. 

DOE determined a range of annual 

energy use and per-cycle water 

consumption of residential dishwashers 

by multiplying the per-cycle energy use 

and per-cycle water use of each 

considered design by the number of 

cycles per year in a representative 

sample of U.S. households.26

DOE analyzed per-cycle energy 

consumption based on two components: 

(1) Water-heating energy, and (2) 

machine (motor) and drying energy, 

values for which are taken from data 

developed by DOE in the engineering 

analysis. See chapter 5 of the NOPR 

TSD for more information. The largest 

component of residential dishwasher 

energy consumption is water-heating 

energy use, which is the energy required 

to heat the inlet water to the 

temperature for dishwashing. The 

machine energy consists of the motor 

energy (for water pumping and food 

disposal), and drying energy consists of 

heat to dry cleaned dishes. 

DOE estimated the per-cycle waterheating energy consumption based on 

DOE’s residential dishwasher test 

procedure (which refers to this quantity 

as ‘‘water energy consumption’’). DOE 

estimated this energy consumption for 

residential dishwashers that operate 

with a nominal inlet water temperature 

of 120 °F 27, the most common situation 

in U.S. homes. For a residential 

dishwasher using electrically heated 

water, the water-heating energy 

consumption, expressed in kWh per 

cycle, is equal to the water consumption 

per cycle times a nominal water heater 

temperature rise of 70 °F times the 

specific heat of water (0.0024 kWh per 

gallon per °F).28 For a residential 

dishwasher using gas-heated or oilheated water, the calculation is the 

same, but also incorporates a nominal 

water heater recovery efficiency of 0.80 

for gas-fired water heating and 0.78 for 

oil-fired water heating.29

The energy used to operate the 

machine powers the motor (to pump 

water and dispose of food) and the 

heating element, which boosts the 

supplied water’s temperature to the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
76156 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

30Active mode includes the main functions of 

washing, rinsing, or drying (when a drying process 

is included), or is involved in functions necessary 

for these main functions, such as admitting water 

into the dishwasher, pumping water out of the 

dishwasher, circulating air, or regenerating an 

internal water softener. For more information, see 

the DOE dishwasher test procedure at 10 CFR part 

430, subpart B, appendix C1. 

31For more information, see chapter 7 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

32The 1-hour cycle time is an estimate of the 

typical cycle time for a dishwasher. Actual cycle 

times vary based on wash selection, load, and 

model of dishwasher. 

33Arthur D. Little. ‘‘Review of Survey Data to 

Support Revisions to DOE’s Dishwasher Test 

Procedure,’’ December 18, 2001. Prepared for the 

U.S. Department of Energy by Arthur D. Little: 

Cambridge, MA. Available at: http://

www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE2014-BT-STD-0021-0001. 

34Arthur D. Little. ‘‘Review of Survey Data to 

Support Revisions to DOE’s Dishwasher Test 

Procedure,’’ December 18, 2001. Prepared for the 

U.S. Department of Energy by Arthur D. Little: 

Cambridge, MA. Available at: http://

www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE2014-BT-STD-0021-0001 

Note that several of the surveys used in this 

review share the problem of defining a single value 

for a category (i.e, a point estimate), but to a much 

less extent than the RECS data. Generally the other 

surveys minimize this issue by including more 

categories, by better distributing categories, and by 

having more bounded categories. 

35 68 FR 51887 (Aug. 29, 2003) and Arthur D. 

Little. ‘‘Review of Survey Data to Support Revisions 

to DOE’s Dishwasher Test Procedure,’’ December 

18, 2001. Prepared for the U.S. Department of 

Energy by Arthur D. Little: Cambridge, MA. 

Available at: http://www.regulations.gov/

#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0021- 

0001. The 215 value was based on the review’s 

recommendation that the number of average-use 

cycles per year be reduced into the range of 200 to 

233 cycles. 

required washing temperature. DOE 

estimated the per-cycle machine and 

drying energy consumption for 

representative units at each efficiency 

level by subtracting the per-cycle waterheating energy consumption from the 

per-cycle dishwasher energy 

consumption as determined in the 

engineering analysis. 

Standby power is defined as a 

product’s minimum power consumption 

while plugged in and not performing 

any active mode function.30 DOE 

estimated the per-cycle energy use by 

subtracting the annual energy use 

associated with standby power from the 

total annual energy use and dividing the 

result by the national average number of 

residential dishwasher cycles per year. 

DOE used data provided by AHAM for 

the May 2012 direct final rule on the 

total annual residential dishwasher 

energy use and the standby power use 

for each considered efficiency level.31

DOE determined the standby annual 

energy consumption by multiplying the 

energy use in standby mode per hour by 

the hours the residential dishwasher is 

in standby mode, which is the 

difference between the number of hours 

in a year and the active hours, which is 

equal to the number of residential 

dishwasher cycles per year multiplied 

by cycle time, which is estimated to be 

1 hour.32

DOE estimated the per-cycle water 

use by efficiency level in its engineering 

analysis, as described in chapter 5 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

To estimate the number of cycles per 

year in a representative sample of U.S. 

households, DOE considered the 

following data sources. DOE analyzed 

data from the Energy Information 

Administration (EIA)’s 2009 Residential 

Energy Consumption Survey (RECS 

2009), which was the most recent such 

survey available at the time of DOE’s 

analysis.33 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. Of the 

more than 12,000 households in RECS, 

almost 7,400 have residential 

dishwashers. For each household using 

a residential dishwasher, RECS provides 

data on the number of residential 

dishwasher cycles in the following bins: 

(1) Less than once per week, (2) once 

per week, (3) 2–3 times per week, (4) 4– 

6 times per week, (5) at least once per 

day. DOE converted the above 

information to annual values and 

created a triangular or uniform 

distribution for each bin. DOE randomly 

assigned a specific numerical value 

from within the appropriate bin to each 

household in the residential dishwasher 

sample. The average number of cycles 

per year derived from the RECS 2009 

data is 171. 

While the RECS data represent the 

most recent nationally representative 

sample of dishwasher usage, the binning 

approach that the RECS survey uses to 

collect the data does not allow for the 

derivation of a point estimate to help 

determine annual energy and water use 

without making assumptions about the 

distribution of usage within bins. For 

example, of the 18% of national 

households that responded that they 

used their dishwashers at least once per 

day, it is not known what percentage of 

these households use their dishwashers 

more than once a day or if viewed 

weekly, more than 7 times a week. 

Because the RECS data do not include 

point estimates of usage, DOE relies on 

survey data it used to develop the 2003 

residential dishwasher test procedure 

amendments and analyzed again during 

the 2012 standards rulemaking 34 to 

estimate the average number of 

residential dishwasher cycles per year. 

In the review, survey data on 

consumers’ residential dishwasher 

usage habits from the 1990’s were 

collected from a number of sources 

including several residential dishwasher 

manufacturers, detergent manufacturers, 

energy and consumer interest groups, 

independent researchers, and 

government agencies. This study 

provides a large data set of point 

estimates which DOE believes is the 

best source of information on usage 

rates at present. This survey review was 

used in the development of the 2003 

residential dishwasher test procedure 

amendments to reduce the average 

cycles per year from 264 to 215, which 

DOE believed was more reflective of 

dishwasher use nation-wide at the time 

and was not inconsistent with the 

steady decrease over the previous 20 

years in the average-use cycles for a 

dishwasher.35 Because of the facts 

detailed above, DOE is proposing in this 

document to use an average usage of 215 

cycles per year as the value for average 

residential dishwasher use instead of 

171 cycles estimated from the RECS 

survey data. DOE notes that 215 cycles 

per year is the number of cycles 

required to be used to calculate energy 

usage in DOE’s test procedure for 

residential dishwashers which is also 

the basis for the ENERGY GUIDE label 

administered by the Federal Trade 

Commission. DOE further notes that 

alternative analysis that relies on 

additional assumptions regarding use 

patterns within the ‘‘binned’’ RECS data 

could yield results similar to those from 

the earlier data, depending on the 

assumptions made for each of the bins. 

DOE does recognize that dishwasher 

usage data are a key input when 

calculating energy and water use and 

ultimately have a direct effect on the 

benefits derived from estimated energy 

and water use savings described by this 

proposed rulemaking. DOE is aware that 

a point estimate for the annual number 

of dishwasher cycles is subject to 

uncertainty given how data on this topic 

are collected. Given this uncertainty, 

DOE encourages the public to comment 

on its use of these surveys and the 

limitations of each. 

DOE did not assume that all 

dishwashers are operated exactly at the 

average usage per year and used other 

survey data to characterize the 

variability in the usage. For purposes of 

conducting the LCC and PBP analysis, 

DOE characterized each usage bin with 

a probability distribution. To capture 

the uncertainty inherent to the usage 

response for each household in the 

RECS sample, DOE used a Monte Carlo 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76157 

simulation in the LCC and PBP analysis 

that selects a value for usage within the 

distribution that is used to characterize 

each bin. The result of using probability 

distribution to characterize the RECS 

response bins provided a weightedaverage dishwasher usage of 171 cycles 

per year. 

Although DOE characterized the 

usage bins with probability 

distributions, it is certainly possible and 

equally likely that the weighted-average 

value is as low as 146 and as high as 

453. This uncertainty led DOE to 

conclude that the ADL survey review, 

which focused more closely and solely 

on dishwasher usage habits, provided a 

more representative value for the 

average number of cycles per year that 

did the RECS survey. The sorting of user 

responses in RECS into usage frequency 

bins, however, allowed DOE to use 

RECS 2009 to capture dishwasher usage 

variability from household to household 

(since not every household will run the 

average number of dishwasher cycles 

per year). The LCC and PBP analysis 

normalized the dishwasher usage by the 

ratio of 215-to-171 cycles per year. The 

resulting range of values used in the 

LCC analysis is consistent with the 

average use in the DOE residential 

dishwasher test procedure. 

Table IV.6 and Table IV.7 show the 

estimated average annual energy and 

water use for each efficiency level 

analyzed for standard residential 

dishwashers. 

TABLE IV.6—STANDARD RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS: AVERAGE ANNUAL ENERGY AND WATER USE BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL

Efficiency Level 

Annual Energy Use 

Water 

Heating* 

Machine + 

Drying Standby † 

Total 

kWh/year kWh/year 

Baseline ............................................................................... 177.0 130.0 0.0 307 1,075.0 

1 ........................................................................................... 150.4 140.3 4.3 295 913.8 

2 ........................................................................................... 123.9 151.8 4.3 280 752.5 

3 ........................................................................................... 109.7 120.0 4.3 234 666.5 

4 ........................................................................................... 78.6 97.1 4.3 180 477.3 

* Shown for the case of electrically heated water. 

† Standby annual energy use based on a dishwasher cycle length of one hour. Standby hours = 8760 hours ¥ (215 cycles × 1 hour) = 8545 

hours. 

TABLE IV.7—COMPACT RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS: AVERAGE ANNUAL ENERGY AND WATER USE BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL

Efficiency Level 

Annual Energy Use 

Water 

Heating* 

Machine + 

Drying Standby † 

Total 

kWh/year kWh/year 

Baseline ............................................................................... 123.9 78.4 19.7 222 752.5 

1 ........................................................................................... 109.7 78.7 14.5 203 666.5 

2 ........................................................................................... 70.8 65.9 4.3 141 430.0 

* Shown for the case of electrically heated water. 

† Standby annual energy use based on a dishwasher cycle length of 1 hour. Standby hours = 8760 hours—(215 cycles × 1 hour) = 8545 

hours. 

Chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD provides 

details on DOE’s energy and water use 

analysis for residential dishwashers. 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

DOE conducted LCC and PBP 

analyses to evaluate the economic 

impacts on individual consumers of 

potential energy conservation standards 

for residential dishwashers. 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 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 

due to a more stringent standard by the 

change in annual operating cost for the 

year that new standards are assumed to 

take effect. 

For any given efficiency level, DOE 

measures the change in LCC relative to 

an estimate of the base-case appliance 

efficiency distribution. 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. 

In contrast, the PBP is measured relative 

to the baseline product. 

For each considered efficiency level 

in each product class, DOE calculated 

the LCC and PBP for a nationally 

representative set of housing units. As 

stated previously, DOE developed 

household samples from the 2009 RECS. 

For each sample household, DOE 

determined the energy consumption for 

the residential dishwasher 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 dishwashers. 

Inputs to the calculation of total 

installed cost include the cost of the 

product—which includes MPCs, 

manufacturer markups, retailer and 

distributor 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
76158 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

36Taylor, M. and Fujita, K.S. Accounting for 

Technological Change in Regulatory Impact 

Analyses: The Learning Curve Technique. LBNL– 

6195E. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 

Berkeley, CA. April 2013. http://escholarship.org/

uc/item/3c8709p4#page-1. 

value, to account for their uncertainty 

and variability. 

The computer model DOE uses to 

calculate the LCC and PBP, which 

incorporates Crystal BallTM (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 residential 

dishwasher user samples. The model 

calculated the LCC and PBP for 

products at each efficiency level for 

10,000 housing units per simulation 

run. 

DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for 

all customers as if each were to 

purchase a new product in the year that 

compliance with any amended 

standards is expected to be required. 

Any amended standards would apply to 

residential dishwashers manufactured 3 

years after the date on which any final 

amended standard is published. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(g)(10)(B)) For today’s 

NOPR, DOE estimates publication of 

any final standards in 2016. Therefore, 

for purposes of its analysis, DOE used 

2019 as the first year of compliance with 

any amended standards. 

Table IV.8 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 

NOPR TSD. 

TABLE IV.8—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS * 

Inputs Source/method 

Product Cost ................................... Derived by multiplying MPCs 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 ............................. Baseline installation cost determined with data from RS Means. Assumed no change with efficiency level. 

Annual Energy and Water Use ....... The sum of the total per-cycle annual energy and water use multiplied by the number of cycles per year 

and the standby annual energy use. Average number of cycles based on ADL field data. 

Variability: Based on the 2009 RECS normalized to the average number of cycles. 

Energy and Water Prices ................ Electricity: Based on EIA’s Form 861 data for 2012. 

Gas: Based on EIA’s Natural Gas Navigator for 2012. 

LPG: Based on EIA’s State Energy Consumption, Price and Expenditures Estimates for 2012. 

Variability: Regional energy prices determined for 27 regions. 

Water: Based on 2012 AWWA/Raftelis Survey. 

Variability: By census region. 

Energy and Water Price Trends ..... Energy: Forecasted using AEO 2014 price forecasts. 

Water: Forecasted using BLS historic water price index information. 

Repair and Maintenance Costs ...... Assumed no change with efficiency level. 

Product Lifetime .............................. Estimated using survey results from RECS (1990, 1993, 1997, 2001, 2005, 2009) 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, 2007, and 2010. 

Compliance Date ............................ 2019 

* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD. 

** Survey of Consumer Finances. 

1. Product Cost 

To calculate consumer product costs, 

DOE multiplied the MPCs developed in 

the engineering analysis by the supplychain 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 higherefficiency products. 

Economic literature and historical 

data suggest that the real costs of many 

products may trend downward over 

time according to ‘‘learning’’ or 

‘‘experience’’ curves. Experience curve 

analysis focuses on entire industries 

(often operating globally) and aggregates 

over many causal factors that may not 

be well characterized. Experience curve 

analysis implicitly includes factors such 

as efficiencies in labor, capital 

investment, automation, materials 

prices, distribution, and economies of 

scale at an industry-wide level.36

For the default price trend for this 

NOPR, DOE estimated an experience 

rate for residential dishwashers based 

on an analysis of long-term historical 

data. Producer Price Index (PPI) data 

specific to residential dishwashers were 

not available. Instead, DOE derived a 

residential dishwasher price index from 

1988 to 2013 using Producer Price Index 

(PPI) data for miscellaneous household 

appliances from the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS). An inflation-adjusted 

price index was calculated using the 

implicit price deflators for GDP for the 

same years. This proxy for historic price 

data was then regressed on the 

cumulative quantity of residential 

dishwashers produced, based on a 

corresponding series for total shipments 

of residential dishwashers. 

To calculate an experience rate, a 

least-squares power-law fit was 

performed on the residential dishwasher 

price index versus cumulative 

shipments (including imports). DOE 

then derived a price factor index, with 

the price in 2013 equal to 1, to forecast 

prices in the year of compliance for 

amended energy conservation standards 

in the LCC and PBP analysis, and for the 

NIA, for each subsequent year through 

2048. The index value in each year is a 

function of the experience rate and the 

cumulative production through that 

year. To derive the latter, DOE used 

projected shipments from the base-case 

projections made for the NIA (see 

section IV.G of this notice). The average 

annual rate of price decline in the 

default case is 1.33 percent. 

2. Installation Cost 

Installation cost includes labor, 

overhead, and any miscellaneous 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76159 

37RS Means, Residential Cost Data, 2013. 

38Available at: www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/ 

page/eia861.html. 

39Available at: http://www.eia.gov/oil_gas/

natural_gas/data_publications/natural_gas_

monthly/ngm.html. 

40Available at: http://www.eia.gov/state/seds/

seds-data-fuel.cfm?sid=US. 

41U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information 

Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2013 with 

Projections to 2040 (Available at: http://

www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/). 

materials and parts needed to install the 

product. DOE used data from the 2013 

RS Means Plumbing Cost data book 37 to 

estimate the baseline installation cost. 

DOE found no evidence that installation 

costs would be impacted with increased 

efficiency levels. 

3. Annual Energy and Water 

Consumption 

For each sampled household, DOE 

determined the energy and water 

consumption for a residential 

dishwasher at different efficiency levels 

using the approach described above in 

section IV.E of this notice. 

4. Energy Prices 

DOE derived average annual 

residential electricity prices for 27 

geographic regions using data from 

EIA’s Form EIA–861 database (based on 

‘‘Annual Electric Power Industry 

Report’’).38 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 

the number of residential consumers it 

served in that region. The NOPR 

analysis used the data for 2012. 

DOE calculated average residential 

natural gas prices for each of the 27 

geographic regions using data from 

EIA’s ‘‘Natural Gas Monthly.’’ 39 DOE 

calculated average annual regional 

residential prices by: (1) Estimating an 

average residential price for each state; 

and (2) weighting each state by the 

number of residential consumers. The 

NOPR analysis used the data for 2012. 

DOE calculated average residential 

LPG prices for each of the 27 geographic 

regions using data from EIA’s ‘‘State 

Energy Consumption, Price, and 

Expenditures Estimates (SEDS).’’ 40 DOE 

calculated average annual regional 

residential prices by: (1) Estimating an 

average residential price for each State; 

and (2) weighting each State by the 

number of residential consumers. The 

NOPR analysis used the data for 2012. 

To estimate energy prices in future 

years, DOE multiplied the average 

regional energy prices discussed in the 

preceding section by the forecast of 

annual national-average residential 

energy price changes in the Reference 

case from AEO 2014, which has an end 

year of 2040.41 To estimate price trends 

after 2040, DOE used the average annual 

rate of change in prices from 2020 to 

2040. 

5. Water and Wastewater Prices 

For today’s NOPR, DOE obtained data 

on water and wastewater prices for 2012 

from the Water and Wastewater Rate 

Survey conducted by Raftelis Financial 

Consultants and the water utility 

association, American Water Works 

Association. The survey, which 

analyzes each industry separately, 

covers approximately 290 water utilities 

and 214 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. 

To estimate the future trend for water 

and wastewater prices, DOE used data 

on the historic trend in the national 

water price index (U.S. city average) 

from 1970 through 2012, combined with 

the all-products CPI for this same 

period. It extrapolated a future trend 

based on the linear inflation-adjusted 

growth during the 1970 to 2012 period. 

DOE used the projected inflationadjusted water price trend to forecast 

water and wastewater prices for 

residential dishwashers. 

Chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD provides 

more detail about DOE’s approach to 

developing water and wastewater 

prices. 

6. 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. 

During the rulemaking for the May 

2012 direct final rule, DOE requested 

information as to whether maintenance 

and repair costs are a function of 

efficiency level and product class. 

Manufacturers responded that these 

costs would not increase with 

efficiency. DOE does not expect repair 

costs to have changed since the last 

rulemaking; therefore, DOE did not 

assume that more efficient residential 

dishwashers would have greater repair 

or maintenance costs. 

DOE did not have data showing how 

many households would repair rather 

than replace their dishwashers. The 

replacement frequency is determined by 

a survival function which is part of the 

shipments model. DOE used an 

accounting method that tracks the total 

stock of units by vintage. DOE estimated 

a stock of dishwashers by vintage by 

integrating historical shipments starting 

from 1972. Depending on the vintage, a 

certain percentage of units will fail and 

need to be replaced. To estimate how 

long a unit will function before failing, 

DOE used a survival function based on 

a product lifetime distribution having 

an average value of approximately 15 

years. Because DOE assumed that a 

consumer’s decision to replace or repair 

their dishwasher was not impacted by 

an increase in dishwasher efficiency, 

the replacement frequency was 

unaffected by the increased installed 

cost, the repair cost, and the energy 

costs savings associated with more 

efficient dishwashers. 

7. 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 household sample. 

DOE conducted an analysis of 

residential dishwasher lifetimes in the 

field based on a combination of 

shipments data and RECS 2009 data on 

the ages of the residential dishwashers 

reported in the household stock. As 

described in chapter 8 of the NOPR 

TSD, the analysis yielded an estimate of 

mean age for residential dishwashers of 

approximately 15 years. It also yielded 

a survival function that DOE 

incorporated as a probability 

distribution in its LCC analysis. See 

chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for further 

details on the method and sources DOE 

used to develop product lifetimes. 

8. Discount Rates 

In the calculation of LCC, DOE 

applies discount rates appropriate to 

households to estimate the present 

value of future operating costs. DOE 

estimated a distribution of residential 

discount rates for dishwashers based on 

consumer financing costs and 

opportunity cost of funds related to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
76160 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

42Note that two older versions of the SCF are also 

available (1989 and 1992); these surveys are not 

used in this analysis because they do not provide 

all of the necessary types of data (e.g., credit card 

interest rates). DOE determines that the 15-year 

span covered by the six surveys included is 

sufficiently representative of recent debt and equity 

shares and interest rates. 

appliance energy cost savings and 

maintenance costs. 

To establish residential discount rates 

for the LCC analysis, DOE’s approach 

involved identifying all relevant 

household debt or asset classes in order 

to approximate a consumer’s 

opportunity cost of funds related to 

appliance energy cost savings and 

maintenance costs. It estimated the 

average percentage shares of the various 

types of debt and equity by household 

income group using data from the 

Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of 

Consumer Finances (SCF) for 1995, 

1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, and 2010.42

Using the SCF and other sources, DOE 

then developed a distribution of rates 

for each type of debt and asset by 

income group 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 rate 

across all types of household debt and 

equity and income groups, weighted by 

the shares of each class, is 4.49 percent. 

See chapter 8 in the NOPR TSD for 

further details on the development of 

consumer discount rates. 

9. 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 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. 

To estimate the base-case efficiency 

distribution of standard residential 

dishwashers for 2019, DOE relied on 

data submitted by AHAM for the May 

2012 direct final rule. These data 

provide shares of shipments by 

efficiency level for 2002–2005 and 

2008–2010. These data show a 

significant increase in the share of 

ENERGY STAR products in both 

periods. To predict the market shares for 

each efficiency level in 2019, DOE 

conducted efficiency distribution 

analysis based on the DOE’s Compliance 

Certification Database for standard 

residential dishwashers and considered 

the market trends present in the AHAM 

data, and assumed these trends would 

continue in a manner consistent with 

the decline in average energy use. This 

trend is described in chapter 10 of the 

NOPR TSD. DOE also conducted 

efficiency distribution analysis based on 

DOE’s Compliance Certification 

Database for compact residential 

dishwashers. 

The estimated shares for the base-case 

efficiency distribution for residential 

dishwashers are shown in Table IV–9. 

See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for 

further information on the derivation of 

the base-case efficiency distributions. 

For standard residential dishwashers, 

DOE also considered an alternative 

base-case efficiency distribution that 

uses a different set of historical data. 

This distribution is described in 

appendix 8–F of the NOPR TSD. 

TABLE IV.9—RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHER BASE-CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION BY PRODUCT CLASS IN 2013 

Efficiency level 

Standard Compact 

Annual energy 

use 

(kWh/year) 

% of 

shipments 

Annual energy 

use 

(kWh/year) 

% of 

shipments 

Baseline ........................................................................................................... 307 12.1 222 48.1 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 295 43.9 203 14.8 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 234 3.2 141 37.0 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 180 0.4 ........................ ........................

10. 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 for 

each efficiency level are the change in 

total installed cost of the product and 

the change in the first-year annual 

operating expenditures relative to the 

baseline. The PBP calculation uses the 

same inputs as the LCC analysis, except 

that discount rates are not needed. 

11. 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 NOPR. 

G. Shipments 

DOE uses forecasts of product 

shipments to calculate the national 

impacts of potential amended energy 

conservation standards on energy use, 

NPV, and future manufacturer cash 

flows. DOE develops shipment 

projections based on historical data and 

an analysis of key market drivers for 

residential dishwashers. 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76161 

43S. Hymans. Consumer Durable Spending: 

Explanation and Prediction, Brookings Papers on 

Economic Activity, 1971. Vol. 1971, No. 1, pp. 234– 

239. 

44For the NIA, DOE adjusts the installed cost data 

from the LCC analysis to exclude sales tax, which 

is a transfer. 

product shipments as inputs to estimate 

the age distribution of in-service 

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. 

New housing forecasts and residential 

dishwasher saturation data comprised 

the two primary inputs for DOE’s 

estimates of new construction 

shipments. ‘‘New housing’’ includes 

newly-constructed single-family and 

multi-family units (referred to as ‘‘new 

housing completions’’) and mobile 

home placements. For new housing 

completions and mobile home 

placements, DOE used AEO 2014 for 

forecasts of new housing, and adopted 

the projections from AEO 2014 for later 

years. 

DOE calibrated the shipments model 

against historical residential dishwasher 

shipments. In general, DOE estimated 

replacements using a product retirement 

function developed from product 

lifetime. DOE based the retirement 

function on a probability distribution 

for the product lifetime that was 

developed in the LCC analysis. The 

shipments model assumes that no units 

are retired below a minimum product 

lifetime and that all units are retired 

before exceeding a maximum product 

lifetime. 

DOE applied a price elasticity 

parameter to estimate the effect of 

standards on residential dishwasher 

shipments. DOE estimated the price 

elasticity parameter from a regression 

analysis that used purchase price and 

efficiency data specific to several 

residential appliances during 1980– 

2002. The estimated ‘‘relative price 

elasticity’’ incorporates the impacts 

from purchase price, operating cost, and 

household income. Based on evidence 

that the price elasticity of demand is 

significantly different over the short run 

and long run for other consumer goods 

(i.e., automobiles),43 DOE assumed that 

the relative price elasticity 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 

NOPR TSD. 

H. National Impact Analysis 

The 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 with the 

annual energy consumption and total 

installed cost data from the energy use 

and LCC analyses.44 For the present 

analysis, DOE forecasted the energy 

savings, operating cost savings, product 

costs, and NPV of consumer benefits 

over the lifetime of products sold from 

2019 through 2048. 

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 a spreadsheet model to 

calculate the energy savings and the 

national consumer costs and savings 

from each TSL. The TSD 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. 

For the results presented in today’s 

notice, DOE used projections of energy 

prices and housing starts from the AEO 

2014 Reference case. As part of the NIA, 

DOE analyzed scenarios that used 

inputs from the AEO 2014 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–C of the NOPR TSD. 

Table IV.10 summarizes the inputs 

and methods DOE used for the NIA 

analysis for the NOPR. Discussion of 

these inputs and methods follows the 

table. See chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD 

for further details. 

TABLE IV.10—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

Inputs Method 

Shipments ................................................ Annual shipments from shipments model. 

Compliance Date of Standard ................. 2019. 

Base-Case Forecasted Efficiencies ........ Efficiency distributions are forecasted based on historical efficiency data. 

Standards-Case Forecasted Efficiencies Used a ‘‘roll-up’’ scenario. 

Annual Energy Consumption per Unit ..... Annual weighted-average values are a function of energy use at each CSL. 

Total Installed Cost per Unit .................... Annual weighted-average values are a function of cost at each CSL. 

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 do not change with efficiency level. 

Energy Prices .......................................... AEO 2014 forecasts (to 2040) and extrapolation through 2048. 

Energy Site-to-Source Conversion Factor Varies yearly and is generated by NEMS–BT. 

Discount Rate .......................................... Three and seven percent real. 

Present Year ............................................ Future expenses discounted to 2014, when the NOPR will be published. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
76162 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

45OMB Circular A–4 (Sept. 17, 2003), section E, 

‘‘Identifying and Measuring Benefits and Costs. 

Available at: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

memoranda/m03-21.html. 

1. National Energy and Water Savings 

The national energy and water savings 

analysis involves a comparison of 

national energy and water consumption 

of the considered products in each 

potential standards case (TSL) with 

consumption in the base case with no 

new or amended energy and water 

conservation standards. DOE calculated 

the national energy consumption by 

multiplying the number of units (stock) 

of each product (by vintage or age) by 

the unit energy consumption (also by 

vintage). Vintage represents the age of 

the product. DOE calculated annual 

NES based on the difference in national 

energy consumption for the base case 

(without amended efficiency standards) 

and for each higher efficiency standard. 

DOE estimated energy consumption and 

savings based on site energy and 

converted the electricity consumption 

and savings to primary energy using 

annual conversion factors derived from 

the AEO 2014 version of NEMS. 

Cumulative energy savings are the sum 

of the NES for each year over the 

timeframe of the analysis. 

DOE has historically presented NES 

in terms of primary energy savings. In 

the case of electricity use and savings, 

this quantity includes the energy 

consumed by power plants to generate 

delivered (site) electricity. 

In response to the recommendations 

of a committee on ‘‘Point-of-Use and 

Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement 

Approaches to Energy Efficiency 

Standards’’ appointed by the National 

Academy of Sciences, DOE announced 

its intention to use FFC measures of 

energy use and greenhouse gas and 

other emissions in the national impact 

analyses and emissions analyses 

included in future energy conservation 

standards rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 

(Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the 

approaches discussed in the August 18, 

2011 notice, DOE published a statement 

of amended policy in the Federal 

Register in which DOE explained its 

determination that NEMS is the most 

appropriate tool for its FFC analysis and 

its intention to use NEMS for that 

purpose. 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). 

a. 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.9 of this notice 

describes how DOE developed a basecase 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 for standard 

residential dishwashers over the entire 

forecast period, DOE utilized the 

historical trend in shipment-weighted 

average efficiency from 2002 to 2010, as 

provided by AHAM, model-weighted 

data from the DOE’s Compliance 

Certification Database and considered 

the potential effect of programs such as 

ENERGY STAR. The historical trend 

demonstrates that the shipmentweighted average annual energy use 

decreased by almost 75 percent from 

2002 to 2010, reaching 309 kWh/year. 

DOE fit an exponential function to the 

2002 to 2010 data that indicated that the 

base-case shipment-weighted average 

annual energy use will asymptotically 

approach a value of 280 kWh/year by 

2048 and remain at that level. This 

trend is described in chapter 10 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

DOE determined that a roll-up 

scenario is most appropriate to establish 

the distribution of efficiencies for the 

year that compliance with revised 

residential dishwasher standards would 

be required. 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. The details of DOE’s approach 

to forecast efficiency trends are 

described in chapter 10 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

2. Net Present Value Analysis 

The inputs for determining the 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. 

The operating cost savings are 

primarily energy cost savings. These are 

calculated using the estimated energy 

savings in each year and the projected 

price of the appropriate form of energy. 

To estimate energy prices in future 

years, DOE multiplied the average 

regional energy prices discussed in the 

preceding section by the forecast of 

annual national-average residential 

energy price changes in the Reference 

case from AEO 2014, which has an end 

year of 2040. To estimate price trends 

after 2040, DOE used the average annual 

rate of change in prices from 2020 to 

2040. 

In calculating the NPV, DOE 

multiplies the net savings in future 

years by a discount factor to determine 

their present value. For today’s NOPR, 

DOE estimated the NPV of consumer 

benefits using both a 3-percent and a 7- 

percent 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.45 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. 

a. Total Installed Cost per Unit 

As discussed in section IV.F.1 of this 

NOPR, DOE developed a residential 

dishwasher price trend based on an 

experience rate for miscellaneous 

household appliances. It used this trend 

to forecast the prices of residential 

dishwashers sold in each year in the 

forecast period. DOE applied the same 

values to forecast prices for each 

product class at each considered 

efficiency level. By 2048, which is the 

end date of the forecast period, the price 

is forecasted to drop 37.4 percent 

relative to 2013. DOE’s projection of 

product prices for residential 

dishwashers is described in further 

detail in appendix 10–C of the NOPR 

TSD. 

To evaluate the effect of uncertainty 

regarding the price trend estimates, DOE 

investigated the impact of different 

product price forecasts on the consumer 

NPV for the considered TSLs for 

residential dishwashers. In addition to 

the default price trend, DOE considered 

two product price sensitivity cases: (1) 

A high price decline case based on an 

exponential fit using PPI data for 1988 

to 2013; (2) a low price decline case 

based on an experience rate derived 

using PPI and shipments data for 1991 

to 2000. The derivation of these price 

trends and the results of these 

sensitivity cases are described in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76163 

46Available online at www.sec.gov. 

47Available online at 

www.standardandpoors.com. 

appendix 10–C of the NOPR TSD. In the 

high price decline case, the NPV is 

significantly higher than in the default 

case. In the low price decline case, the 

NPV is slightly lower than in the default 

case. The rank order of the TSLs is the 

same in all of the cases. 

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

In analyzing the potential impact of 

new or amended standards on 

consumers, DOE evaluates the impact 

on identifiable subgroups of consumers 

that may be disproportionately affected 

by a national standard. DOE evaluated 

impacts on particular subgroups of 

consumers by analyzing the LCC 

impacts and PBP for those particular 

consumers from alternative standard 

levels. For this rulemaking, DOE 

analyzed the impacts of the considered 

standard levels on low-income 

households and senior-only households. 

Chapter 11 in the NOPR TSD describes 

the consumer subgroup analysis. 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

The following sections address the 

various steps taken to analyze the 

impacts of the amended standards on 

manufacturers. 

1. Overview 

In determining whether an amended 

energy conservation standard for 

residential dishwashers 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 that is likely to 

result from the adoption of a standard 

as determined by the Attorney General. 

(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 involves both quantitative 

analysis and qualitative evaluation. The 

quantitative elements of the MIA rely on 

the Government Regulatory Impact 

Model (GRIM), an industry cash-flow 

model customized for this rulemaking. 

See section IV.J.2 of this notice for 

details on the GRIM. The qualitative 

parts of the MIA address factors such as 

product characteristics, characteristics 

of particular firms, and market trends. 

The complete MIA is discussed in 

chapter 12 of the NOPR 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 dishwasher 

manufacturing industry based on the 

market and technology assessment 

prepared for this rulemaking. 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 data, product 

attributes, product shipments, 

manufacturer markups, and the cost 

structure for various manufacturers. 

The profile also included an analysis 

of manufacturers in the industry using 

Security and Exchange Commission 10– 

K filings,46 Standard & Poor’s stock 

reports,47 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 including industry revenues, 

cost of goods sold, and depreciation, as 

well as selling, general, and 

administrative (SG&A), and research 

and development (R&D) expenses. 

Based on its analysis, DOE used the 

same industry average financial 

parameters developed in support of the 

May 2012 direct final rule. 

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 dishwasher 

manufacturing industry. In performing 

this analysis, DOE used the financial 

parameters from the 2012 residential 

dishwasher energy conservation 

standards rulemaking, the costefficiency curves from the engineering 

analysis, and the shipment assumptions 

from the NIA. 

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. While DOE did not 

identify any other subgroup of 

manufacturers of residential 

dishwashers that would warrant a 

separate analysis, DOE specifically 

investigated impacts on small business 

manufacturers. See section VI.B of this 

notice for more information. 

The MIA also addresses the direct 

impact on employment tied to the 

manufacturing of residential 

dishwashers. Using the GRIM, census 

data and information gained through 

manufacturer interviews conducted in 

support of the May 2012 direct final 

rule, DOE estimated the domestic labor 

expenditures and number of domestic 

production workers in the base case and 

at each TSL from 2014 to 2048. 

2. GRIM 

DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the 

changes in cash flow that alter industry 

value. The GRIM is a standard, 

discounted cash-flow model that 

incorporates manufacturer costs, 

markups, shipments, and industry 

financial information as inputs, and 

models changes in manufacturing costs, 

shipments, investments, and margins 

that may result from amended energy 

conservation standards. The GRIM uses 

these inputs to arrive at a series of 

annual cash flows, beginning with the 

base year of the analysis, 2014, and 

continuing to 2048. 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. Additional details about 

the GRIM can be found in chapter 12 of 

the NOPR TSD. 

a. GRIM Key Inputs 

Manufacturer Production Costs 

Changes in the MPCs of residential 

dishwashers can affect revenues, gross 

margins, and cash flow of the industry, 

making product cost data key inputs for 

DOE’s analysis. DOE estimated the 

MPCs for standard and compact product 

classes at the baseline and higher 

efficiency levels, as described in section 

IV.C of this notice. The cost model also 

disaggregated the MPCs into the cost of 

materials, labor, overhead, and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
76164 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

depreciation. DOE used the MPCs and 

cost breakdowns as described in section 

IV.C of this NOPR, and further detailed 

in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD, for each 

efficiency level analyzed in the GRIM. 

Base-Case Shipments Forecast 

The GRIM estimates manufacturer 

revenues in each year of the forecast 

based in part on total unit shipments 

and the distribution of these values by 

efficiency level and product class. 

Changes in the efficiency mix and total 

shipments at each standard level affect 

manufacturer finances. For this analysis, 

the GRIM uses the NIA shipments 

forecasts from 2013 to 2048, the end of 

the analysis period. 

To calculate shipments, DOE 

developed a shipments model for each 

product class based on an analysis of 

key market drivers for residential 

dishwashers. For greater detail on the 

shipments analysis, see section IV.G of 

this NOPR and chapter 9 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

Amended energy conservation 

standards may 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 noncapitalized costs focused on making 

product designs comply with the 

amended energy conservation standard. 

Capital conversion costs are investments 

in property, plant, and equipment 

needed to adapt or change existing 

production facilities so that new 

product designs can be fabricated and 

assembled. 

DOE’s estimates of the product and 

capital conversion costs for the 

residential dishwasher manufacturing 

industry can be found in section V.B.2 

of this NOPR and in chapter 12 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

b. GRIM Scenarios 

Standards-Case Shipments Forecasts 

The MIA results presented in section 

V.B.2 of this NOPR all use shipments 

from the NIA in the GRIM. For 

standards case shipments, DOE assumed 

that base-case shipments of products 

that did not meet the new standard 

would roll up to meet the standard in 

the compliance year. These forecasts 

also include the impact of relative price 

elasticity on shipment volumes. In this 

regard the balance of first costs and 

operating costs factor into the total 

shipments in the standards case. See 

section IV.G of this NOPR for a 

description of the standards-case 

efficiency distributions. 

The NIA also 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 

for all scenarios. See section IV.F.1 of 

this notice for a discussion of DOE’s 

price forecasting methodology. 

Capital Conversion Cost Scenarios 

DOE developed two model scenarios 

for the capital conversion costs required 

to meet each TSL. One scenario is based 

on the capital conversion costs 

developed for the energy conservation 

standards from the May 2012 direct 

final rule, scaled to reflect the new 

efficiency levels for each product class 

considered in this NOPR. Additionally, 

DOE developed a separate capital 

conversion cost scenario using the 

engineering cost model. For this 

estimate, DOE identified the design 

pathways considered in the engineering 

analysis, estimated the cost of the 

changes in production equipment to 

implement each design option, and 

aggregated these costs to reflect the 

industry-wide investment using market 

information about the number of 

platform and product families currently 

on the market from each manufacturer. 

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. DOE used the baseline 

manufacturer markup, 1.24, developed 

for the May 2012 direct final rule for all 

products when modeling the base case 

in the GRIM. 

For the standards case in the GRIM, 

DOE modeled two markup scenarios to 

represent the uncertainty regarding the 

potential impacts on prices and 

profitability for manufacturers following 

the implementation of amended energy 

conservation standards. For both GRIM 

markup scenarios, DOE placed no 

premium on higher efficiency products. 

This assumption is informed by a 

market structure in which 88 percent of 

product shipments currently adhere to 

ENERGY STAR standards, leaving little 

to no room for differentiation by 

efficiency level alone. The two 

standards-case markup scenarios are (1) 

a preservation of gross margin as a 

percentage of revenues markup 

scenario, and (2) a preservation of 

earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) 

markup scenario. Modifying these 

markups from the base case to the 

standards cases yields different sets of 

impacts on industry revenues and cash 

flow. 

The preservation of gross margin as a 

percentage of revenues markup scenario 

assumes that the baseline markup of 

1.24 is maintained for all products in 

the standards case. This scenario 

represents the upper bound of industry 

profitability as manufacturers are able to 

fully pass through additional costs due 

to standards to their customers under 

this scenario. 

The preservation of EBIT markup 

scenario is similar to the preservation of 

gross margin as a percentage of revenues 

markup scenario with the exception that 

in the standards case, minimally 

compliant products lose a fraction of the 

baseline markup. This scenario 

represents the lower bound profitability 

and a more substantial impact on the 

dishwasher industry as manufacturers 

accept a lower margin in an attempt to 

offer price competitive entry level 

products while maintaining the same 

level of EBIT they saw prior to amended 

standards. 

3. Manufacturer Interviews 

For this rulemaking, DOE relies on 

information gathered from manufacturer 

interviews conducted in support of the 

May 2012 direct final rule. For that 

rulemaking, DOE interviewed 

manufacturers representing more than 

80 percent of residential dishwasher 

sales. These interviews were in addition 

to those DOE conducted as part of the 

engineering analysis for the May 2012 

direct final rule. DOE used these 

interviews to tailor the GRIM for today’s 

rule 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 12–A 

of the NOPR TSD for additional 

information on the previous MIA 

interviews. The following sections 

describe the most significant issues 

identified by manufacturers during the 

interviews conducted in support of the 

May 2012 direct final rule. 

a. Dishwasher Performance 

All manufacturers interviewed 

expressed concerns about the potential 

impacts of amended standards on 

product performance, citing several 

adverse consequences of standards 

above those agreed upon in the Joint 

Petition. For higher efficiency 

standards, the performance metrics 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76165 

48 * * * 

manufacturers expected to be most 

severely impacted include wash 

performance, drying performance, cycle 

time, and the noise levels reached in 

operation. In considering these metrics, 

manufacturers anticipated negative 

reactions ranging from small but 

meaningful changes in consumer 

behavior to higher rates of service calls 

and returns. For efficiency standards 

well above those proposed in the Joint 

Petition, manufacturers expected 

blanket rejection of poorly performing 

products in the market. In considering 

impacts to wash performance, 

manufacturers cited an increase in 

unnecessary rinsing or washing of 

dishes prior to loading the dishwasher, 

switching to a more aggressive cycle, 

and running multiple cycles when 

dishes are not adequately cleaned in a 

single cycle as the most likely changes 

in consumer behavior. Manufacturers 

suggested that any of these changes 

would result in an increase in both 

energy and water consumption over that 

used by a dishwasher of satisfactory 

performance. To mitigate the impact of 

future standards on product 

performance, several manufacturers 

recommended the adoption of a 

performance metric into the test 

procedure and standard. 

While all manufacturers suggested 

that the efficiency level specified in the 

Joint Petition would not likely have a 

substantial negative impact on wash 

performance, some manufacturers noted 

that standards above this level would 

result in a decrease in performance 

unless substantially higher-cost 

technology changes were implemented. 

The comments did not indicate the 

specific technology changes that would 

be required. Even without such 

technology changes, however, several 

manufacturers offer or have offered 

products at efficiency levels above those 

specified by the Joint Petition, including 

the max-tech efficiency level identified 

in today’s proposed rule. Accordingly, 

DOE evaluated these higher efficiency 

levels as part of this rulemaking. 

DOE conducted investigative testing 

to assess cleaning performance in 

support of this NOPR according to the 

ENERGY STAR Test Method for 

Determining Dishwasher Cleaning 

Performance (Cleaning Performance 

Test Method).48 The testing included 

multiple units from different 

manufacturers at multiple efficiency 

levels. Based on this internal testing and 

the availability of products on the 

market, DOE determined that products 

from the baseline efficiency level to 

Efficiency Level 3 for standard 

residential dishwashers are able to 

maintain cleaning performance. 

b. Test Procedures 

During interviews conducted as part 

of the development of the May 2012 

direct final rule for residential 

dishwashers, manufacturers raised 

concerns over the DOE dishwasher test 

procedure and the multitude of 

additional dishwasher test procedures 

in the field at that time. Several 

manufacturers suggested that the DOE 

test procedure did not accurately 

capture the energy used by dishwashers 

in the field. These manufacturers cited 

the single cycle specification and lack of 

performance metrics in the test 

procedure as providing an easy avenue 

for circumvention of the standards. In 

the scenario described, manufacturers 

could optimize a particular cycle to 

perform well on the DOE test procedure 

with the implicit understanding that 

this cycle will not meet customer 

expectations and thus will not be used 

in the field as customers opt for a 

different, more energy-intensive cycle. 

In contrast, other manufacturers 

raised concerns over expanding the test 

procedure to cover multiple cycles, 

citing the additional testing burden this 

would generate. Similarly, some 

manufacturers raised concerns over how 

DOE would implement a performance 

test, noting that there already exist 

numerous performance tests in the 

industry including those developed by 

AHAM, IEC, and Consumer Reports and 

that each performance test procedure 

favors a different machine cycle 

algorithm. 

As discussed in sections II.A and 

II.B.3 of this NOPR, the DOE test 

procedure for residential dishwashers is 

found at Title 10 of CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix C1 (proposed to be 

redesignated as appendix C in this 

rulemaking). Although appendix C1 

does not include provisions for 

measuring cleaning performance, the 

ENERGY STAR program recently 

finalized the Cleaning Performance Test 

Method. The Cleaning Performance Test 

Method harmonizes with the procedures 

in appendix C1, requiring 

manufacturers to test on the same 

cycles. Appendix C1 also requires that 

testing be conducted on the cycles 

recommended for completely washing a 

full load of normally soiled dishes. 

c. Increased Competition 

During interviews conducted in 

support of the May 2012 direct final 

rule, manufacturers of both baseline and 

high efficiency products anticipated an 

increase in competition in industry 

stemming from amended standards. 

Manufacturers whose market share was 

largely attributed to baseline products 

expected to see either the removal of 

features from higher efficiency units as 

a means to cut costs to maintain a lowcost minimally-compliant product, or 

the disappearance of entry-level models 

as they are forced to add other features 

and cost in line with current higher 

efficiency products. If the latter 

approach prevails, manufacturers of 

higher efficiency products expected to 

see increased competition as 

manufacturers that previously focused 

on low efficiency products moved into 

their target segment of the market. As 

noted in section III.D.1.c of this NOPR, 

the Attorney General provides DOE with 

a determination and analysis of the 

impact of any lessening of competition 

that is likely to result from the 

imposition of the standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) 

d. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

During interviews conducted in 

support of the May 2012 direct final 

rule, several manufacturers noted that 

residential dishwashers are but one of a 

suite of appliances they produce and 

that the cumulative burden of research 

and development to meet standards, 

capital expenditures and retraining of 

staff to produce products at the new 

standards, and product testing to certify 

compliance of new products represent a 

significant burden when taken in 

combination across their various 

product lines. Manufacturers suggested 

that the ability to establish standards in 

a coordinated fashion by such vehicles 

as the Joint Petition and receiving 

adequate notice of DOE’s plans for 

amended standards are both necessary 

elements in mitigating the cumulative 

burden and aligning changes in 

efficiency regulations with the product 

development cycle. Cumulative 

regulatory burden is discussed further 

in section V.B.2.e of this NOPR and 

chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. 

K. Emissions Analysis 

In the emissions analysis, DOE 

estimates the reduction in power sector 

emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), and mercury (Hg) from potential 

energy conservation standards for 

residential dishwashers. In addition to 

estimating impacts of standards on 

power sector emissions, DOE estimates 

emissions impacts in production 

activities (extracting, processing, and 

transporting fuels) that provide the 

energy inputs to power plants. These are 

referred to as ‘‘upstream’’ emissions. 

Together, these emissions account for 

the FFC. In accordance with DOE’s FFC 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
76166 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

49See http://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/

inventory/ghg-emissions.html. 

50 IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical 

Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to 

the Fifth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

[Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, 

S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex 

and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University 

Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, 

NY, USA. Chapter 8. 

51See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. 

Cir. 2008); North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 

(D.C. Cir. 2008). 

52See EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 

696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 81 

U.S.L.W. 3567, 81 U.S.L.W. 3696, 81 U.S.L.W. 3702 

(U.S. June 24, 2013) (No. 12–1182). 

53On April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court 

reversed the judgment of the DC Circuit and 

remanded the case for further proceedings 

consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. The 

Supreme Court held in part that EPA’s methodology 

for quantifying emissions that must be eliminated 

in certain states due to their impacts in other 

downwind states was based on a permissible, 

workable, and equitable interpretation of the Clean 

Air Act provision that provides statutory authority 

for CSAPR. See EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 

No 12–1182, slip op. at 32 (U.S. April 29, 2014). 

Because DOE is using emissions factors based on 

AEO 2014 for today’s NOPR, the NOPR assumes 

that CAIR, not CSAPR, is the regulation in force. 

The difference between CAIR and CSAPR is not 

relevant for the purpose of DOE’s analysis of SO2

emissions. 

54CSAPR also applies to NOX, and it would 

supersede the regulation of NOX under CAIR. As 

stated previously, the current analysis assumes that 

CAIR, not CSAPR, is the regulation in force. The 

difference between CAIR and CSAPR with regard to 

DOE’s analysis of NOX is slight. 

Statement of Policy (76 FR 51281 (Aug. 

18, 2011) as amended at 77 FR 49701 

(August 17, 2012)), the FFC analysis 

also includes impacts on emissions of 

methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), 

both of which are recognized as 

greenhouse gases. 

DOE primarily conducted the 

emissions analysis using emissions 

factors for CO2 and most of the other 

gases derived from data in AEO 2014. 

Combustion emissions of CH4 and N2O 

were estimated using emissions 

intensity factors published by the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

in its Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Factors Hub.49 DOE developed separate 

emissions factors for power sector 

emissions and upstream emissions. The 

method that DOE used to derive 

emissions factors is described in chapter 

13 of the NOPR TSD. 

For CH4 and N2O, DOE calculated 

emissions reduction in tons and also in 

terms of units of carbon dioxide 

equivalent (CO2eq). Gases are converted 

to CO2eq by multiplying each ton of the 

greenhouse gas by the gas’s global 

warming potential (GWP) over a 100- 

year time horizon. Based on the Fifth 

Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change,50 DOE used GWP values of 28 

for CH4 and 265 for N2O. 

EIA prepares the AEO using NEMS. 

Each annual version of NEMS 

incorporates the projected impacts of 

existing air quality regulations on 

emissions. AEO 2014 generally 

represents current legislation and 

environmental regulations, including 

recent government actions, for which 

implementing regulations were 

available as of October 31, 2013. 

SO2 emissions from affected electric 

generating units (EGUs) are subject to 

nationwide and regional emissions capand-trade programs. 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 (DC). SO2 emissions from 28 

eastern States and DC were also limited 

under the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR). 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). 

CAIR, which created an allowancebased trading program that operates 

along with the Title IV program, was 

remanded to the EPA by the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit, but it remained in effect.51 In 

2011, EPA issued a replacement for 

CAIR, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

(CSAPR). 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). 

On August 21, 2012, the DC Circuit 

issued a decision to vacate CSAPR.52

The court ordered EPA to continue 

administering CAIR. The emissions 

factors used for today’s NOPR, which 

are based on AEO 2014, assume that 

CAIR remains a binding regulation 

through 2040.53

The attainment of emissions caps is 

typically flexible among EGUs and is 

enforced through the use of emissions 

allowances and tradable permits. 

Beginning in 2016, however, SO2

emissions will decline significantly as a 

result of the Mercury and Air Toxics 

Standards (MATS) for power plants. 77 

FR 9304 (Feb. 16, 2012). In the final 

MATS rule, EPA established a standard 

for hydrogen chloride as a surrogate for 

acid gas hazardous air pollutants (HAP), 

and also established a standard for SO2

(a non-HAP acid gas) as an alternative 

equivalent surrogate standard for acid 

gas HAP. The same controls are used to 

reduce HAP and non-HAP acid gas; 

thus, SO2 emissions will be reduced as 

a result of the control technologies 

installed on coal-fired power plants to 

comply with the MATS requirements 

for acid gas. AEO 2014 assumes that, in 

order to continue operating, coal plants 

must have either flue gas 

desulfurization or dry sorbent injection 

systems installed by 2016. Both 

technologies, which are used to reduce 

acid gas emissions, also reduce SO2

emissions. Under the MATS, emissions 

will be far below the cap established by 

CAIR, so it is unlikely that excess SO2

emissions allowances resulting from the 

lower electricity demand would be 

needed or used to permit offsetting 

increases in SO2 emissions by any 

regulated EGU. Therefore, DOE believes 

that energy efficiency standards will 

reduce SO2 emissions in 2016 and 

beyond. 

CAIR established a cap on NOX

emissions in 28 eastern States and the 

District of Columbia.54 Energy 

conservation standards are expected to 

have little effect on NOX emissions in 

those States covered by CAIR because 

excess NOX emissions allowances 

resulting from the lower electricity 

demand could be used to permit 

offsetting increases in NOX emissions. 

However, standards would be expected 

to reduce NOX emissions in the States 

not affected by the caps, so DOE 

estimated NOX emissions reductions 

from the standards considered in 

today’s NOPR for these States. 

The MATS limit mercury emissions 

from power plants, but they do not 

include emissions caps. DOE estimated 

mercury emissions using emissions 

factors based on AEO 2014, which 

incorporates the MATS. 

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other 

Emissions Impacts 

As part of the development of this 

proposed rule, DOE considered the 

estimated monetary benefits from the 

reduced emissions of CO2 and NOX that 

are expected to result from each of the 

TSLs considered. In order to make this 

calculation analogous to the calculation 

of the NPV of consumer benefit, DOE 

considered the reduced emissions 

expected to result over the lifetime of 

equipment 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 values considered in 

this NOPR. 

For today’s NOPR, DOE relied on a set 

of values for the SCC that was 

developed by a Federal interagency 

process. The basis for these values is 

summarized below, and a more detailed 

description of the methodologies used is 

provided as an appendix to chapter 14 

of the NOPR TSD. 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76167 

55National Research Council. Hidden Costs of 

Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy 

Production and Use (2009). National Academies 

Press: Washington, DC. 

56 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. 

57Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Interagency 

Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United 

States Government (February 2010) (Available at: 

Continued 

increased flood risk, and the value of 

ecosystem services. Estimates of the 

SCC are provided in dollars per metric 

ton of CO2. A domestic SCC value is 

meant to reflect the value of damages in 

the United States resulting from a unit 

change in CO2 emissions, while a global 

SCC value is meant to reflect the value 

of damages worldwide. 

Under section 1(b) of 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 

monetized social benefits of reducing 

CO2 emissions into cost-benefit analyses 

of regulatory actions. 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 

When attempting to assess the 

incremental economic impacts of CO2

emissions, the analyst faces a number of 

challenges. A report from the National 

Research Council 55 points out that any 

assessment will suffer from uncertainty, 

speculation, and lack of information 

about: (1) Future emissions of GHGs; (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 questions of 

science, economics, and ethics and 

should be viewed as provisional. 

Despite the limits of both 

quantification and monetization, SCC 

estimates can be useful in estimating the 

social benefits of reducing CO2

emissions. 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 values 

appropriate for that year. The NPV 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. 

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. In the meantime, 

the interagency group will continue to 

explore the issues raised by this analysis 

and consider public comments as part of 

the ongoing interagency process. 

b. Development of Social Cost of Carbon 

Values 

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 

Federal 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$) of $55, 

$33, $19, $10, and $5 per metric ton of 

CO2. These interim values represented 

the first sustained interagency effort 

within the U.S. government to develop 

an SCC for use in regulatory analysis. 

The results of this preliminary effort 

were presented in several proposed and 

final rules. 

c. Current Approach and Key 

Assumptions 

After the release of the interim values, 

the interagency group reconvened on a 

regular basis to generate improved SCC 

estimates. Specially, the group 

considered public comments and 

further explored the technical literature 

in relevant fields. The interagency group 

relied on three integrated assessment 

models commonly used to estimate the 

SCC: the FUND, DICE, and PAGE 

models. These models are frequently 

cited in the peer-reviewed literature and 

were used in the last assessment of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC). 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 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 

sets of SCC values for use in regulatory 

analyses. Three sets of values are based 

on the average SCC from the three 

integrated assessment models, at 

discount rates of 2.5, 3, and 5 percent. 

The fourth set, which represents the 

95th percentile SCC estimate across all 

three models at a 3-percent discount 

rate, was included to represent higherthan-expected impacts from temperature 

change further out in the tails of the 

SCC distribution. The 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,56 although preference is given to 

consideration of the global benefits of 

reducing CO2 emissions. Table IV.11 

presents the values in the 2010 

interagency group report,57 which is 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
76168 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/

inforeg/for-agencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-forRIA.pdf). 

58Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon 

for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive 

Order 12866, Interagency Working Group on Social 

Cost of Carbon, United States Government (May 

2013; revised November 2013) (Available at: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/

omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-ofcarbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf). 

reproduced in appendix 14–A of the 

NOPR TSD. 

TABLE IV.11—ANNUAL SCC VALUES FROM 2010 INTERAGENCY REPORT, 2010–2050 

(2007$ per metric ton CO2) 

Year 

Discount Rate 

5% 3% 2.5% 3% 

Average Average Average 95th percentile 

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 

The SCC values used for today’s 

notice were generated using the most 

recent versions of the three integrated 

assessment models that have been 

published in the peer-reviewed 

literature.58

Table IV.12 shows the updated sets of 

SCC estimates in 5-year increments from 

2010 to 2050. The full set of annual SCC 

estimates between 2010 and 2050 is 

reported in appendix 14–B of the NOPR 

TSD. The central value that emerges is 

the average SCC across models at the 3- 

percent discount rate. However, for 

purposes of capturing the uncertainties 

involved in regulatory impact analysis, 

the interagency group emphasizes the 

importance of including all four sets of 

SCC values. 

TABLE IV.12—ANNUAL SCC VALUES FROM 2013 INTERAGENCY REPORT, 2010–2050 

(2007$ per metric ton CO2) 

Year 

Discount Rate 

5% 3% 2.5% 3% 

Average Average Average 95th percentile 

2010 ................................................................................................................. 11 32 51 89 

2015 ................................................................................................................. 11 37 57 109 

2020 ................................................................................................................. 12 43 64 128 

2025 ................................................................................................................. 14 47 69 143 

2030 ................................................................................................................. 16 52 75 159 

2035 ................................................................................................................. 19 56 80 175 

2040 ................................................................................................................. 21 61 86 191 

2045 ................................................................................................................. 24 66 92 206 

2050 ................................................................................................................. 26 71 97 220 

It is important to recognize that a 

number of key uncertainties remain, and 

that current SCC estimates should be 

treated as provisional and revisable 

because they will evolve with improved 

scientific and economic understanding. 

The interagency group also recognizes 

that the existing models are imperfect 

and incomplete. The 2009 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 analytical challenges that are 

being addressed by the research 

community, including research 

programs housed in many of the Federal 

agencies participating in the interagency 

process to estimate the SCC. The 

interagency group intends 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 summary, in considering the 

potential global benefits resulting from 

reduced CO2 emissions, DOE used the 

values from the 2013 interagency report 

adjusted to 2013$ using the implicit 

price deflator for GDP from the Bureau 

of Economic Analysis. For each of the 

four sets of SCC values, the values for 

emissions in 2015 were $12.0, $40.5, 

$62.4, and $119 per metric ton avoided 

(values expressed in 2013$). DOE 

derived values after 2050 using the 

relevant growth rates for the 2040–2050 

period in the interagency update. 

DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions 

reduction estimated for each year by the 

SCC value for that year in each of the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76169 

59U.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) (Available at: 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/

omb/inforeg/2006_cb/2006_cb_final_report.pdf). 

60 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 email to dipsweb@bls.gov. 

Available at: www.bls.gov/news.release/

prin1.nr0.htm. 

61See Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional 

Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional 

Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II). 

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

1992. 

62 J.M. Roop, M.J. Scott, and R.W. Schultz, ImSET 

3.1: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies, PNNL– 

18412, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 2009. 

Available at: www.pnl.gov/main/publications/

external/technical_reports/PNNL–18412.pdf 

four cases. 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. 

2. Valuation of Other Emissions 

Reductions 

As noted above, DOE has taken into 

account how amended energy 

conservation standards would reduce 

site NOX emissions nationwide and 

increase power sector NOX emissions in 

those 22 States not affected by the CAIR. 

DOE estimated the monetized value of 

net NOX emissions reductions resulting 

from each of the TSLs considered for 

today’s NOPR based on estimates found 

in the relevant scientific literature. 

Estimates of monetary value for 

reducing NOX from stationary sources 

range from $476 to $4,893 per ton in 

2013$.59 DOE calculated monetary 

benefits using a medium value for NOX

emissions of $2,684 per short ton (in 

2013$), and real discount rates of 3 

percent and 7 percent. 

DOE is evaluating appropriate 

monetization of avoided SO2 and Hg 

emissions in energy conservation 

standards rulemakings. DOE has not 

included monetization of those 

emissions in the current analysis. 

M. Utility Impact Analysis 

The utility impact analysis estimates 

several effects on the power generation 

industry that would result from the 

adoption of new or amended energy 

conservation standards. In the utility 

impact analysis, DOE analyzes the 

changes in installed electrical capacity 

and generation that would result for 

each trial standard level. The utility 

impact analysis is based on published 

output from NEMS, which is a public 

domain, multi-sectored, partial 

equilibrium model of the U.S. energy 

sector. Each year, NEMS is updated to 

produce the AEO reference case as well 

as a number of side cases that estimate 

the economy-wide impacts of changes to 

energy supply and demand. DOE uses 

those published side cases that 

incorporate efficiency-related policies to 

estimate the marginal impacts of 

reduced energy demand on the utility 

sector. The output of this analysis is a 

set of time-dependent coefficients that 

capture the change in electricity 

generation, primary fuel consumption, 

installed capacity and power sector 

emissions due to a unit reduction in 

demand for a given end use. These 

coefficients are multiplied by the stream 

of energy savings calculated in the NIA 

to provide estimates of selected utility 

impacts of new or amended energy 

conservation standards. Chapter 15 of 

the NOPR TSD describes the utility 

impact analysis in further detail. 

N. Employment Impact Analysis 

DOE considers employment impacts 

in the domestic economy as one factor 

in selecting a proposed standard. 

Employment impacts include both 

direct and indirect impacts. Direct 

employment impacts are any changes in 

the number of employees of 

manufacturers of the products subject to 

standards, their suppliers, and related 

service firms. The MIA addresses those 

impacts. 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 by: (1) Reduced spending by end 

users on energy; (2) reduced spending 

on new energy supply by the utility 

industry; (3) increased spending on new 

products to which the new standards 

apply; and (4) the effects of those three 

factors throughout the economy. 

One method for assessing the possible 

effects on the demand for labor of such 

shifts in economic activity is to compare 

sector employment statistics developed 

by the Labor Department’s Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (BLS).60 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.61 There are many reasons for 

these differences, including wage 

differences and the fact that the utility 

sector is more capital-intensive and less 

labor-intensive than other sectors. 

Energy conservation standards have the 

effect of reducing consumer utility bills. 

Because reduced consumer 

expenditures for energy likely lead to 

increased expenditures in other sectors 

of the economy, the general effect of 

efficiency standards is to shift economic 

activity from a less labor-intensive 

sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more 

labor-intensive sectors (e.g., the retail 

and service sectors). Thus, based on the 

BLS data alone, DOE believes net 

national employment will increase due 

to shifts in economic activity resulting 

from amended standards for residential 

dishwashers. 

For the amended standard levels 

considered in this NOPR, DOE 

estimated indirect national employment 

impacts using an input/output model of 

the U.S. economy called Impact of 

Sector Energy Technologies version 

3.1.1 (ImSET).62 ImSET is a specialpurpose 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 187 sectors most 

relevant to industrial, commercial, and 

residential building energy use. 

DOE notes that ImSET is not a general 

equilibrium forecasting model, and 

understands the uncertainties involved 

in projecting employment impacts, 

especially changes in the later years of 

the analysis. Because ImSET does not 

incorporate price changes, the 

employment effects predicted by ImSET 

may over-estimate actual job impacts 

over the long run for this rulemaking. 

Because ImSET predicts small job 

impacts resulting from this rulemaking, 

regardless of these uncertainties, the 

actual job impacts are likely to be 

negligible in the overall economy. For 

more details on the employment impact 

analysis, see chapter 16 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

V. Analytical Results 

The following section addresses the 

results from DOE’s analyses with 

respect to potential energy conservation 

standards for residential dishwashers 

for both product classes. It addresses the 

TSLs examined by DOE and the 

projected impacts of each of these levels 

if adopted as energy conservation 

standards for residential dishwashers. 

Additional details regarding DOE’s 

analyses are contained in the NOPR 

TSD supporting this notice. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
76170 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

DOE analyzed the benefits and 

burdens of three TSLs for residential 

dishwashers. These TSLs were 

developed using combinations of 

efficiency levels for the standard and 

compact product classes analyzed by 

DOE. DOE presents the results for those 

TSLs in today’s rule. DOE presents the 

results for all efficiency levels that it 

analyzed in the NOPR TSD. Table V.1 

presents the TSLs and the 

corresponding efficiency levels for 

residential dishwashers. TSL 3 

represents the maximum 

technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’) 

improvements in energy efficiency for 

both standard and compact residential 

dishwashers. TSL 2 consists of the next 

efficiency level below the max-tech 

level for both standard and compact 

residential dishwashers. TSL 1 consists 

of the first efficiency level considered 

above the baseline for standard 

residential dishwashers, and the 

baseline level for compacts. 

TABLE V.1—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS

TSL 

Standard Compact 

CSL 

Annual 

energy 

use (kWh) 

CSL 

Annual 

energy 

use (kWh) 

1 ........................................................................................................................ 1 295 Baseline ........ 222 

2 ........................................................................................................................ 3 234 1 .................... 203 

3 ........................................................................................................................ 4 180 2 .................... 141 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

DOE analyzed the economic impacts 

on residential dishwasher consumers by 

looking at the effects potential amended 

standards would have on the LCC and 

PBP. DOE also examined the impacts of 

potential standards on consumer 

subgroups. These analyses are discussed 

below. 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

To evaluate the net economic impact 

of potential amended energy 

conservation standards on consumers of 

residential dishwashers, DOE conducted 

LCC and PBP analyses for each TSL. In 

general, higher-efficiency products 

would affect consumers in two ways: (1) 

Purchase price would increase, and (2) 

annual operating costs would decrease. 

Inputs used for calculating the LCC and 

PBP include total installed costs (i.e., 

product price plus installation costs), 

and operating costs (i.e., annual energy 

savings, energy prices, energy price 

trends, repair costs, and maintenance 

costs). The LCC calculation also uses 

product lifetime and a discount rate. 

Chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD provides 

detailed information on the LCC and 

PBP analyses. 

Table V.2 through Table V.5 show the 

LCC and PBP results for all efficiency 

levels considered for both standard and 

compact residential dishwashers. In the 

first of each pair of tables, the simple 

payback is measured relative to the 

baseline product. In the second tables, 

the LCC savings are measured relative to 

the base-case efficiency distribution in 

the compliance year (see section IV.F.9 

of this NOPR). No impacts occur when 

the base-case efficiency for a specific 

consumer equals or exceeds the 

efficiency at a given TSL; a standard 

would have no effect because the 

product installed would be at or above 

that standard level without amended 

standards. 

TABLE V.2—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR STANDARD RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS

TSL Efficiency level 

Average costs 

2013$ Simple 

payback 

years Installed cost First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime operating cost LCC 

— .............................................................. 0 483 45 518 1,000 — 

1 ............................................................... 1 495 43 492 987 6.1 

— .............................................................. 2 531 40 462 993 10.8 

2 ............................................................... 3 582 34 387 970 9.0 

3 ............................................................... 4 582 26 296 879 5.3 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative 

to the baseline product. 

TABLE V.3—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE-CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR STANDARD

RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

% of consumers that 

experience 

Average savings * 

Net cost 2013$ 

1 ................................................................................................................................................... 1 6 2 

— ................................................................................................................................................. 2 39 ¥2 

2 ................................................................................................................................................... 3 53 21 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76171 

63 DOE did not analyze subgroup impacts for 

compact dishwashers because the saturation of 

these products is extremely small. 

TABLE V.3—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE-CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR STANDARD

RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS—Continued 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

% of consumers that 

experience 

Average savings * 

Net cost 2013$ 

3 ................................................................................................................................................... 4 33 112 

* The calculation includes households with zero LCC savings (no impact). 

TABLE V.4—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR COMPACT RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS

TSL Efficiency level 

Average costs 

2013$ Simple 

payback 

years Installed cost First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

1 ............................................................... 0 456 26 302 758 ........................

2 ............................................................... 1 467 24 274 741 4.5 

3 ............................................................... 2 485 16 188 673 2.9 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative 

to the baseline product. 

TABLE V.5—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE-CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR COMPACT

RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS

TSL Efficiency level 

Life-cycle 

cost savings 

% of 

consumers 

that 

experience 

Average 

savings * 

Net cost 2013 

1 ................................................................................................................................................... 0 ........................ ........................

2 ................................................................................................................................................... 1 9 8 

3 ................................................................................................................................................... 2 6 51 

Note: The calculation includes households with zero LCC savings (no impact). 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

As described in section IV.I of this 

notice, DOE determined the impact of 

the considered TSLs on low-income 

households and senior-only 

households.63 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 residential dishwashers. 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 

NOPR TSD presents the complete LCC 

and PBP results for the two subgroups. 

TABLE V.6—STANDARD RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS: COMPARISON OF AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR CONSUMER

SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS

TSL 

Average life-cycle cost savings 

(2013$) 

Simple payback period 

(years) 

Low-income 

households 

Senior-only 

households All households Low-income households 

Senior-only 

households All households 

1 ............................................................... 2 1 2 6.2 8.4 6.1 

2 ............................................................... 15 1 21 9.5 11.6 9.0 

3 ............................................................... 100 71 112 5.6 6.8 5.3 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
76172 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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 and water 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 and water use 

calculation on the DOE test procedures 

for residential dishwashers. 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 

rebuttable-presumption payback periods 

for the considered TSLs. While DOE 

examined the rebuttable-presumption 

criterion, it considered whether the 

standard levels considered for this 

proposed 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). 

TABLE V.7—RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS: REBUTTABLE PBPS

Product class 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 

Standard (years) ...................................................................................................................................... 3.9 7.1 4.2 

Compact (years) ...................................................................................................................................... .................... 3.1 2.0 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the impact of amended energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of residential 

dishwashers. The section below 

describes the expected impacts on 

manufacturers at each TSL. Chapter 12 

of the NOPR TSD explains the analysis 

in further detail. 

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results 

DOE modeled two scenarios using 

different markup assumptions and two 

scenarios using different conversion 

cost assumptions for a total of four 

different scenarios. Each scenario 

results in a unique set of cash flows and 

corresponding industry value at each 

TSL. These assumptions correspond to 

the bounds of a range of market 

responses that DOE anticipates could 

occur in the standards case. 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. The first two tables 

correspond to the scenarios using scaled 

estimates of the capital conversion costs 

from the May 2012 direct final rule with 

the preservation of gross margin 

markups and the preservation of EBIT 

markups respectively. The third and 

fourth tables correspond to the scenarios 

using estimates of the capital conversion 

from the current engineering cost 

model, again with the preservation of 

gross margin markups and the 

preservation of EBIT markups 

respectively. Those scenarios with the 

preservation of gross margin markups 

reflect the lower (less severe) bound of 

impacts whereas the scenarios with the 

preservation of EBIT markups reflect the 

upper (more severe) bound of impacts. 

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 (2014) through the end of the 

analysis period (2048). 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 an estimate of the required 

conversion costs relative to the cash 

flow generated by the industry in the 

base case. 

TABLE V.8—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS—SCALED CAPITAL CONVERSION COSTS

FROM THE MAY 2012 DIRECT FINAL RULE WITH THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN MARKUPS SCENARIO

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 

INPV ..................................................................... (2013$ millions) ............ 586.6 507.3 483.0 426.0 

Change in INPV .................................................... (2013$ millions) ............ ........................ (79.2) (103.6) (160.5) 

(%) ................................ ........................ ¥13.5% ¥17.7% ¥27.4% 

Product Conversion Costs .................................... (2013$ millions) ............ ........................ 38.3 61.7 80.2 

Capital Conversion Costs ..................................... (2013$ millions) ............ ........................ 79.2 172.0 236.7 

Total Conversion Costs ........................................ (2013$ millions) ............ ........................ 117.5 233.7 316.9 

TABLE V.9—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS—SCALED CAPITAL CONVERSION COSTS

FROM THE MAY 2012 DIRECT FINAL RULE WITH THE PRESERVATION OF EBIT MARKUPS SCENARIO

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 

INPV ..................................................................... (2013$ millions) ............ 586.6 506.1 404.2 346.8 

Change in INPV .................................................... (2013$ millions) ............ ........................ (80.5) (182.3) (239.8) 

(%) ................................ ........................ ¥13.7% ¥31.1% ¥40.9% 

Product Conversion Costs .................................... (2013$ millions) ............ ........................ 38.3 61.7 80.2 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76173 

TABLE V.9—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS—SCALED CAPITAL CONVERSION COSTS

FROM THE MAY 2012 DIRECT FINAL RULE WITH THE PRESERVATION OF EBIT MARKUPS SCENARIO—Continued 

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 

Capital Conversion Costs ..................................... (2013$ millions) ............ ........................ 79.2 172.0 236.7 

Total Conversion Costs ........................................ (2013$ millions) ............ ........................ 117.5 233.7 316.9 

TABLE V.8—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS—CAPITAL CONVERSION COSTS FROM

THE 2014 ENGINEERING COST MODEL WITH THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN MARKUPS SCENARIO

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 

INPV ..................................................................... (2013$ millions) ............ 586.6 543.1 465.2 445.5 

Change in INPV .................................................... (2013$ millions) ............ ........................ (43.5) (121.4) (141.1) 

(%) ................................ ........................ ¥7.4% ¥20.7% ¥24.0% 

Product Conversion Costs .................................... (2013$ millions) ............ ........................ 38.3 61.7 80.2 

Capital Conversion Costs ..................................... (2013$ millions) ............ ........................ 35.4 219.7 236.1 

Total Conversion Costs ................................. (2013$ millions) ............ ........................ 73.7 281.4 316.3 

TABLE V.9—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS—CAPITAL CONVERSION COSTS FROM

THE 2014 ENGINEERING COST MODEL WITH THE PRESERVATION OF EBIT MARKUPS SCENARIO

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 

INPV ..................................................................... (2013$ millions) ............ 586.6 541.8 382.9 362.6 

Change in INPV .................................................... (2013$ millions) ............ ........................ (44.7) (203.7) (224.0) 

(%) ................................ ........................ ¥7.6% ¥34.7% ¥38.2% 

Product Conversion Costs .................................... (2013$ millions) ............ ........................ 38.3 61.7 80.2 

Capital Conversion Costs ..................................... (2013$ millions) ............ ........................ 35.4 219.7 236.1 

Total Conversion Costs ................................. (2013$ millions) ............ ........................ 73.7 281.4 316.3 

Because standard residential 

dishwashers represent over 99 percent 

of shipments in the year leading up to 

amended standards, changes to this 

product class contribute the majority of 

impacts to INPV across all TSLs 

analyzed in this rulemaking. 

At TSL 1, DOE estimates impacts on 

INPV to range from ¥$43.5 million to 

¥$80.5 million, or a change in INPV of 

¥7.4 percent to ¥13.7 percent. At this 

level, industry free cash flow is 

estimated to decrease by as much as 

99.0 percent to $0.5 million, compared 

to the base-case value of $47.3 million 

in the year leading up to the amended 

energy conservation standards. As TSL 

1 corresponds to the current ENERGY 

STAR criteria for standard residential 

dishwashers, and these products 

represent 88 percent of shipments in the 

year leading up to amended standards, 

only a small fraction of the market is 

affected at this efficiency level. In either 

markup scenario, the impact on INPV at 

TSL 1 stems largely from the conversion 

costs required to switch production 

lines from manufacturing baseline units 

to those meeting the standards set at 

Efficiency Level 1 for standard 

residential dishwashers. 

As a large fraction of the energy used 

in dishwashing is associated with 

heating the wash water, the design 

options proposed to meet this efficiency 

level relate primarily to minimizing the 

amount of wash water through sprayarm optimization, filter improvements, 

and enabling greater control over the 

wash water temperature. Both of these 

practices are in common use in higher 

efficiency platforms across the industry 

and contribute to an MPC of $213.24 for 

standard dishwashers. Because the 

industry already produces a substantial 

number of products at this efficiency 

level, product and capital conversion 

costs are limited to $73.7 million based 

on the engineering cost model, or $117.5 

million based on the scaled conversion 

costs taken from the May 2012 direct 

final rule. 

At TSL 2, DOE estimates impacts on 

INPV to range from ¥$103.6 million to 

¥$203.7 million, or a change in INPV 

of ¥17.7 percent to ¥34.7 percent. At 

this level, industry free cash flow is 

estimated to decrease by as much as 

247.1 percent to ¥$69.6 million, 

compared to the base-case value of 

$47.3 million in the year leading up to 

the amended energy conservation 

standards. 

DOE expects manufacturers would 

make more extensive improvements to 

meet TSL 2 compared to TSL 1. For 

standard dishwashers, these 

improvements include exchanging a 

heated drying system for a condensation 

drying system, further optimizing the 

hydraulic system (extending to a 

redesign of both the sump and water 

lines and further improvements to the 

filters), and incorporating a flow meter, 

temperature sensor, and soil sensor to 

finely tune water consumption, 

temperature, and the drying cycle. The 

component changes required to enable 

these improvements contribute to an 

MPC of $278.44 for standard 

dishwashers. For standard dishwashers, 

only 3.7 percent of shipments currently 

meet the standards specified at TSL 2. 

In contrast, 51.9 percent of shipments of 

compact dishwashers currently meet the 

standards specified at TSL 2. Because 

only a few standard residential 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
76174 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

dishwashers currently employ these 

energy and water saving measures, the 

product and capital conversion costs for 

standard dishwashers rise to $223.9 

million based on the scaled conversion 

costs taken from the May 2012 direct 

final rule, or $249.2 million based on 

the engineering cost model, as the 

production lines responsible for 

producing over 95 percent of standard 

product shipments would need 

retooling and upgrades. For 

manufacturers of compact dishwashers, 

these investments total $9.8 million 

based on the scaled conversion costs 

taken from the May 2012 direct final 

rule, or $32.2 million based on the 

engineering cost model. Accordingly, 

the conversion costs required to design 

and produce compliant standard 

dishwashers contribute to the majority 

of impacts on INPV at TSL 2. 

At TSL 3, DOE estimates impacts on 

INPV to range from ¥141.1 million to 

¥$239.8 million, or a change in INPV 

of ¥24.0 percent to ¥40.9 percent. At 

this level, industry free cash flow is 

estimated to decrease by as much as 

274.7 percent to ¥$82.6 million, 

compared to the base-case value of 

$47.3 million in the year leading up to 

the amended energy conservation 

standards. The impact to INPV is most 

severe at TSL 3 as less than 1 percent 

of shipments in the year leading up to 

amended standards meet this efficiency 

level. Only 0.4 percent of standard 

dishwasher shipments and 37.0 percent 

of compact dishwasher shipments 

currently meet the standards specified 

at TSL 3. As such, standards at TSL 3 

would affect nearly all platforms and 

will result in substantial capital 

conversion costs associated with 

improvements to nearly all production 

facilities. Because so few products exist 

at this level, nearly all manufacturers 

would face complete redesigns for 

products to meet this standard. 

Accordingly, the product conversion 

costs increase to reflect this substantial 

research effort. The capital and product 

conversion costs required to bring 

products into compliance rise to a total 

of $316.9 million based on the scaled 

conversion costs taken from the May 

2012 direct final rule, or $316.3 million 

based on the engineering cost model. 

Production lines responsible for 

producing over 99 percent of product 

shipments would need retooling and 

upgrades at TSL 3. The conversion costs 

at TSL 3 stem from both the research 

programs needed to develop such 

optimized products and the capital 

investment required to change over 

production lines responsible for 

producing over 99 percent of product 

shipments. 

DOE expects manufacturers of 

standard residential dishwashers would 

incorporate similar design options at 

TSL 3 as at TSL 2, extended to include 

more highly optimized control strategies 

that would further reduce the wash and 

rinse water temperatures. Although the 

component changes required to enable 

these improvements contribute to the 

same MPC of $278.44 for standard 

dishwashers at TSL 3 as for TSL 2, the 

levels specified at TSL 3 significantly 

impact INPV because of the larger 

conversion costs associated with 

developing and producing these highly 

optimized products. For compact 

residential dishwashers, moving from 

TSL 2 to TSL 3 would require 

significant changes to the portion of the 

market that is not currently at the maxtech efficiency level. These changes 

would result in a range of INPV impacts 

for compact manufacturers ranging from 

¥241 percent to ¥1,262 percent. 

Because these impacts are attributed to 

manufacturers of baseline compact 

residential dishwashers in the 

countertop configuration, DOE expects 

that manufacturers would exit the 

market for these products at TSL 3. 

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 

2014 to 2048. DOE used the labor 

content of each product and the MPCs 

from the engineering analysis to 

estimate the total annual labor 

expenditures associated with residential 

dishwashers sold in the United States. 

Using statistical data from the most 

recent U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 

‘‘Annual Survey of Manufactures’’ 

(ASM) and interviews with 

manufacturers from the May 2012 direct 

final rule, DOE estimates that 95 percent 

of residential dishwashers sold in the 

United States are manufactured 

domestically and hence that portion of 

total labor expenditures is attributable 

to domestic labor. 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. 

Using the GRIM, DOE forecasts the 

domestic labor expenditure for 

residential dishwasher production labor 

in 2019 will be approximately $290.7 

million. Using the $27.17 hourly wage 

rate including fringe benefits and 2,042 

production hours per year per employee 

found in the 2011 ASM, DOE estimates 

there will be approximately 5,240 

domestic production workers involved 

in manufacturing residential 

dishwashers in 2019, the year in which 

any amended standards would go into 

effect. In addition, DOE estimates that 

1,250 non-production employees in the 

United States will support residential 

dishwasher production. The 

employment spreadsheet of the 

residential dishwasher GRIM shows the 

annual domestic employment impacts 

in further detail. 

The production worker estimates in 

this section cover workers only up to 

the line-supervisor level who are 

directly involved in fabricating and 

assembling dishwashers within an 

Original Equipment Manufacturer 

(OEM) facility. Workers performing 

services that are closely associated with 

production operations, such as material 

handling with a forklift, are also 

included as production labor. 

Additionally, the employment impacts 

shown are independent of the 

employment impacts from the broader 

U.S. economy, which are documented 

in chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD. 

Table V.10 depicts the potential levels 

of production employment that could 

result following amended energy 

conservation standards as calculated by 

the GRIM. The employment levels 

shown reflect the scenario in which 

manufacturers continue to produce the 

same scope of covered products in 

domestic facilities and domestic 

production is not shifted to lower-laborcost countries. If all existing production 

were moved outside of the United 

States, the expected impact to domestic 

manufacturing employment would be a 

loss of 5,240 jobs, the equivalent of the 

total base-case domestic production 

employment. Because there is a risk of 

manufacturers evaluating sourcing 

decisions in response to amended 

energy conservation standards, the 

expected impact to domestic production 

employment falls between the potential 

increases as shown in Table V.10, and 

the levels of job loss associated with all 

domestic manufacturing of residential 

dishwashers moving outside of the 

United States. The discussion below 

includes a qualitative evaluation of the 

likelihood of negative domestic 

production employment impacts at the 

various TSLs. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76175 

64U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 

‘‘Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis’’ (Sept. 17, 

2003) (Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/

omb/circulars_a004_a-4/). 

TABLE V.10—TOTAL NUMBER OF DOMESTIC RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHER PRODUCTION WORKERS IN 2019 

Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 

Total Number of Domestic Production Workers in 2019 (without changes in production locations) ............................................................................................................... 5,240 5,252 5,426 5,485 

The design options specified at some 

higher ELs increase the labor content 

(measured in dollars) of standard 

residential dishwashers by as much as 

17 percent. All examined TSLs show 

modest gains in domestic manufacturing 

employment levels provided 

manufacturers do not relocate 

production facilities outside of the 

United States. However, at higher TSLs, 

some of the design options analyzed 

greatly impact the ability of 

manufacturers to make product changes 

within existing platforms. Because of 

the higher labor content, the very large 

upfront capital costs, and the fact that 

so few existing units meet the standards 

proposed in this NOPR, some 

manufacturers may consider relocating 

some or all of their domestic production 

of residential dishwashers to lower 

labor cost countries. 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

Less than 5 percent of shipments of 

residential dishwashers already comply 

with the amended energy conservation 

standards proposed in this rulemaking. 

Not every manufacturer that ships 

standard residential dishwashers offers 

products that meet these amended 

energy conservation standards. Because 

manufacturers would need to make 

substantial platform changes by the 

2019 compliance date, many would 

have to run parallel production between 

the announcement of the final rule and 

the compliance date. This requirement 

may impact manufacturing capacity 

during this interim period. DOE seeks 

additional comment on the impact to 

manufacturing capacity between the 

issuance date and the compliance date 

of any amended energy conservation 

standards for residential dishwashers. 

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 examined the potential for 

disproportionate impacts on small 

business manufacturers, as discussed in 

section VI.B of this NOPR. DOE did not 

identify any other manufacturer 

subgroups for this rulemaking. 

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 energy conservation 

standards rulemakings. 

In interviews conducted in support of 

the May 2012 direct final rule, 

manufacturers provided comments on 

some of these regulations. DOE 

summarized and addressed these 

comments in section IV.J.3 of this 

NOPR. 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 identified 

by DOE that meet this criterion are other 

energy conservation standards for 

products and equipment also made by 

manufacturers of residential 

dishwashers. See chapter 12 of the 

NOPR TSD for the results of DOE’s 

analysis of the cumulative regulatory 

burden. 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

To estimate the energy savings 

attributable to potential standards for 

residential dishwashers, DOE compared 

the energy consumption of those 

products under the base case to their 

anticipated energy consumption under 

each TSL. Table V.11 presents DOE’s 

projections of the national energy 

savings and national water savings for 

each TSL considered for residential 

dishwashers. The savings were 

calculated using the approach described 

in section IV.H.1 of this NOPR. 

TABLE V.11—RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS (FOR STANDARD AND COMPACT PRODUCT CLASSES): CUMULATIVE NATIONAL

ENERGY AND WATER SAVINGS (2019–2048) 

Savings 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 

Source Energy Savings (quads) .................................................................................................. 0.00 1.00 2.39 

FFC Energy Savings (quads) ...................................................................................................... 0.01 1.06 2.53 

Water Savings (trillion gallons) .................................................................................................... 0.03 0.24 0.99 

OMB Circular A–4 64 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
76176 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

65Section 325(m) of EPCA requires DOE to review 

its standards at least once every 6 years, and 

requires, for certain products, 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 previous standards. While 

adding a 6-year review to the 3-year compliance 

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 may not be appropriate given the variability 

that occurs in the timing of standards reviews and 

the fact that for some consumer products, the 

compliance period is 5 years rather than 3 years. 

benefits and costs. For this rulemaking, 

DOE undertook a sensitivity analysis 

using 9, rather than 30, years of product 

shipments. The choice of a 9-year 

period is a proxy for the timeline in 

EPCA for the review of certain energy 

conservation standards and potential 

revision of and compliance with such 

revised standards.65 The review 

timeframe established in EPCA is 

generally not synchronized with the 

product lifetime, product manufacturing 

cycles, or other factors specific to 

residential dishwashers. Thus, such 

results are presented for informational 

purposes only and are not indicative of 

any change in DOE’s analytical 

methodology. The NES sensitivity 

analysis results based on a 9-year 

analytical period are presented in Table 

V.12. The impacts are counted over the 

lifetime of residential dishwashers 

purchased in 2019–2027. 

TABLE V.12—RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS (FOR STANDARD AND COMPACT PRODUCT CLASSES): CUMULATIVE NATIONAL

ENERGY AND WATER SAVINGS FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2019–2027 

Savings 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 

Source Energy Savings (quads) .................................................................................................. 0.00 0.27 0.68 

FFC Energy Savings (quads) ...................................................................................................... 0.00 0.28 0.72 

Water (trillion gallons) .................................................................................................................. 0.01 0.05 0.27 

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 residential 

dishwashers. 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. 

Table V.13 shows the consumer NPV 

results for each TSL DOE considered for 

residential dishwashers. The impacts 

are counted over the lifetime of 

products purchased in 2019–2048. 

TABLE V.13—RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS: CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR PRODUCTS

SHIPPED IN 2019–2048 

Discount rate 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 

Billion 2013$ 

3 percent ...................................................................................................................................... 0.15 2.14 15.7 

7 percent ...................................................................................................................................... 0.05 0.23 5.56 

The NPV results based on the 

aforementioned 9-year analytical period 

are presented in Table V.14. The 

impacts are counted over the lifetime of 

products purchased in 2019–2027. As 

mentioned previously, such results are 

presented for informational purposes 

only and is not indicative of any change 

in DOE’s analytical methodology or 

decision criteria. 

TABLE V.14—RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS: CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR PRODUCTS

SHIPPED IN 2019–2027 

Discount rate 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 

Billion 2013$ 

3 percent ...................................................................................................................................... 0.06 0.13 4.96 

7 percent ...................................................................................................................................... 0.03 ¥0.14 2.43 

The above results reflect the use of a 

default trend to estimate the change in 

price for residential dishwashers over 

the analysis period (see section IV.F.1 of 

this NOPR). DOE also conducted a 

sensitivity analysis that considered one 

scenario with a lower rate of price 

decline than the reference case and one 

scenario with a higher rate of price 

decline than the reference case. The 

results of these alternative cases are 

presented in appendix 10–C of the 

NOPR TSD. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76177 

c. 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 residential dishwashers to reduce 

energy bills for consumers of those 

products, and the resulting net savings 

to be redirected to other forms of 

economic activity. These expected shifts 

in spending and economic activity 

could affect the demand for labor. As 

described in section IV.N of this NOPR, 

DOE used an input/output model of the 

U.S. economy to estimate indirect 

employment impacts of the TSLs that 

DOE considered in this rulemaking. 

DOE understands that there are 

uncertainties involved in projecting 

employment impacts, especially 

changes in the later years of the 

analysis. Therefore, DOE generated 

results for near-term timeframes, where 

these uncertainties are reduced. 

The results suggest that today’s 

standards are likely to have negligible 

impact on the net demand for labor in 

the economy. The net change in jobs is 

so small that it would be imperceptible 

in national labor statistics and might be 

offset by other, unanticipated effects on 

employment. Chapter 16 of the NOPR 

TSD presents detailed results. 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

Based on testing conducted in support 

of this proposed rule, discussed in 

section IV.C.1.b, DOE concluded that 

the TSL proposed in this NOPR would 

not reduce the utility or performance of 

the residential dishwashers 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)) 

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 will transmit a copy of today’s 

NOPR 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 proposed rule in 

determining whether to proceed with 

the proposed energy conservation 

standards. 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 

Enhanced energy efficiency, where 

economically justified, improves the 

nation’s energy security, strengthens the 

economy, and reduces the 

environmental impacts or costs of 

energy production. Reduced electricity 

demand due to energy conservation 

standards is also likely to reduce the 

cost of maintaining the reliability of the 

electricity system, particularly during 

peak-load periods. As a measure of this 

reduced demand, chapter 15 in the 

NOPR TSD presents the estimated 

reduction in generating capacity for the 

TSLs that DOE considered in this 

rulemaking. 

Energy savings from amended 

standards for residential dishwashers 

could also produce environmental 

benefits in the form of reduced 

emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases associated with 

electricity production. Table V.15 

provides DOE’s estimate of cumulative 

emissions reductions to result from the 

TSLs considered in this rulemaking. 

DOE reports annual CO2, NOX, and Hg 

emissions reductions for each TSL in 

chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD. 

TABLE V.15—CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATED FOR RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2019–2048 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 

Power Sector and Site Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ............................................................................................................. 0.2 57.9 137.5 

SO2 (thousand tons) .................................................................................................................... ¥0.4 42.4 98.1 

NOX (thousand tons) ................................................................................................................... 2.3 68.9 171.0 

Hg (tons) ...................................................................................................................................... 0.0 0.1 0.3 

N2O (thousand tons) .................................................................................................................... 0.0 0.7 1.7 

CH4 (thousand tons) .................................................................................................................... 0.0 5.0 11.7 

Upstream Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ............................................................................................................. 0.1 4.0 9.7 

SO2 (thousand tons) .................................................................................................................... 0.0 0.5 1.2 

NOX (thousand tons) ................................................................................................................... 1.2 57.8 141.6 

Hg (tons) ...................................................................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 

N2O (thousand tons) .................................................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.1 

CH4 (thousand tons) .................................................................................................................... 7.1 340.1 834.5 

Total FFC Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ............................................................................................................. 0.3 61.9 147.2 

SO2 (thousand tons) .................................................................................................................... ¥0.4 42.9 99.4 

NOX (thousand tons) ................................................................................................................... 3.4 126.7 312.6 

Hg (tons) ...................................................................................................................................... 0.0 0.1 0.3 

N2O (thousand tons) .................................................................................................................... 0.0 0.7 1.7 

N2O (thousand tons CO2eq)* ...................................................................................................... ¥1.2 196.9 462.3 

CH4 (thousand tons) .................................................................................................................... 7.0 345.1 846.2 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
76178 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.15—CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATED FOR RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2019–2048—Continued 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 

CH4 (thousand tons CO2eq)* ....................................................................................................... 197.3 9,663.4 23,693.2

* CO2eq is the quantity of CO2 that would have the same GWP. 

Negative values refer to an increase in emissions. 

As part of the analysis for this 

proposed rule, DOE estimated monetary 

benefits likely to result from the 

reduced emissions of CO2 and NOX that 

DOE estimated for each of the TSLs 

considered for residential dishwashers. 

As discussed in section IV.L of this 

notice, for CO2, DOE used the most 

recent values for the SCC developed by 

an interagency process. The four sets of 

SCC values for CO2 emissions 

reductions in 2015 resulting from that 

process (expressed in 2013$) are 

represented by $12.0/metric ton (the 

average value from a distribution that 

uses a 5-percent discount rate), $40.5/

metric ton (the average value from a 

distribution that uses a 3-percent 

discount rate), $62.4/metric ton (the 

average value from a distribution that 

uses a 2.5-percent discount rate), and 

$119/metric ton (the 95th-percentile 

value from a distribution that uses a 3- 

percent discount rate). The values for 

later years are higher due to increasing 

damages (emissions-related costs) as the 

projected magnitude of climate change 

increases. 

Table V.16 presents the global value 

of CO2 emissions reductions at each 

TSL. For each of the four cases, DOE 

calculated a present value of the stream 

of annual values using the same 

discount rate as was used in the studies 

upon which the dollar-per-ton values 

are based. DOE calculated domestic 

values as a range from 7 percent to 23 

percent of the global values, and these 

results are presented in chapter 14 of 

the NOPR TSD. 

TABLE V.16—ESTIMATES OF GLOBAL PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHER

TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

TSL 

SCC Case* 

5% discount 

rate, average 

3% discount 

rate, average 

2.5% discount 

rate, average 

3% discount 

rate, 95th 

percentile 

Million 2013$ 

Site and Power Sector Emissions 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 1.7 7.7 12.1 23.9 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 400.3 1,849.1 2,936.9 5,724.7 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 901.5 4,245.7 6,772.6 13,138.4 

Upstream Emissions 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 0.5 2.4 3.8 7.4 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 27.1 125.8 200.0 389.8 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 62.4 296.1 473.1 917.1 

Total FFC Emissions 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 2.3 10.1 15.9 31.3 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 427.4 1,974.9 3,136.9 6,114.5 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 963.8 4,541.8 7,245.7 14,056.0 

* For each of the four cases, the corresponding SCC value for emissions in 2015 is $12.0, $40.5, $62.4, and $119 per metric ton (2013$). 

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 on reducing CO2 emissions 

in this rulemaking 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 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 proposed rule the 

most recent values and analyses 

resulting from the interagency process. 

DOE also estimated the cumulative 

monetary value of the economic benefits 

associated with NOX emissions 

reductions anticipated to result from 

amended standards for residential 

dishwashers. The dollar-per-ton values 

that DOE used are discussed in section 

IV.L of this notice. Table V.17 presents 

the cumulative present values for each 

TSL calculated using 7-percent and 3- 

percent discount rates. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76179 

TABLE V.17—ESTIMATES OF PRESENT

VALUE OF NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTION UNDER RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

TSL 3% discount 

rate 

7% discount 

rate 

Million 2013$ * 

Power Sector and Site Emissions 

1 ................ 3.2 1.6 

2 ................ 95.5 44.4 

3 ................ 221.4 98.5 

Upstream Emissions 

1 ................ 1.7 0.8 

2 ................ 77.9 34.8 

TABLE V.17—ESTIMATES OF PRESENT

VALUE OF NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTION UNDER RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS—Continued 

TSL 3% discount 

rate 

7% discount 

rate 

3 ................ 178.9 76.9 

Total FFC Emissions 

1 ................ 4.9 2.4 

2 ................ 173.3 79.2 

3 ................ 400.3 175.4 

* Negative values refer to an increase in 

emissions. 

7. Summary of National Economic 

Impacts 

The NPV of the monetized benefits 

associated with emissions reductions 

can be viewed as a complement to the 

NPV of the customer savings calculated 

for each TSL considered in this 

rulemaking. Table V.18 presents the 

NPV values that result from adding the 

estimates of the potential economic 

benefits resulting from reduced CO2 and 

NOX emissions in each of four valuation 

scenarios to the NPV of customer 

savings calculated for each TSL 

considered in this rulemaking, at both a 

7-percent and 3-percent discount rate. 

The CO2 values used in the columns of 

each table correspond to the four sets of 

SCC values discussed above. 

TABLE V.18—NET PRESENT VALUE OF CUSTOMER SAVINGS COMBINED WITH PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS

FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

TSL 

Customer NPV at 3% discount rate added with: 

SCC case $12.0/

metric ton CO2* 

and medium value 

for NOX

SCC case $40.5/

metric ton CO2* 

and medium value 

for NOX

SCC case $62.4/

metric ton CO2* 

and medium value 

for NOX

SCC case $119/

metric ton CO2* 

and medium value 

for NOX

Billion 2013$ 

1 ............................................................................................... 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 

2 ............................................................................................... 2.7 4.3 5.5 8.4 

3 ............................................................................................... 17.1 20.6 23.3 30.2 

TSL 

Customer NPV at 7% discount rate added with: 

SCC case $12.0/

metric ton CO2* 

and medium value 

for NOX

SCC case $40.5/

metric ton CO2* 

and medium value 

for NOX

SCC case $62.4/

metric ton CO2* 

and medium value 

for NOX

SCC case $119/

metric ton CO2* 

and medium value 

for NOX

Billion 2013$ 

1 ............................................................................................... 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 

2 ............................................................................................... 0.7 2.3 3.4 6.4 

3 ............................................................................................... 6.7 10.3 13.0 19.8 

* For each of the four cases, the corresponding SCC value for emissions in 2015 is $12.0, $40.5, $62.4, and $119 per metric ton (2013$). 

Although adding the value of 

customer 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. customer 

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 the SCC are 

performed with different methods that 

use different time frames for analysis. 

The national operating cost savings is 

measured for the lifetime of equipment 

shipped in 2019 to 2048. The SCC 

values, on the other hand, reflect the 

present value of future climate-related 

impacts resulting from the emission of 

one metric ton of CO2 in each year. 

These impacts continue well beyond 

2100. 

8. 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)) DOE did not 

consider any other factors for this 

NOPR. 

C. Conclusion 

When considering proposed 

standards, the new or amended energy 

conservation standard that DOE adopts 

for any type (or class) of covered 

product must 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, considering to the greatest 

extent practicable the seven statutory 

factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or amended 

standard must also result in a significant 

conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B)) 

The Department considered the 

impacts of standards at each TSL, 

beginning with a maximum 

technologically feasible level, to 

determine whether that level was 

economically justified. Where the maxtech level was not justified, DOE then 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
76180 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

66P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household 

Electricity Demand, Revisited. Review of Economic 

Studies (2005) 72, 853–883. 

67Alan 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. 

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 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 lowincome households and seniors, who 

may be disproportionately affected by a 

national standard. Section IV.I of this 

notice presents the estimated impacts of 

each TSL for these subgroups. 

DOE also 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; 

(5) computational or other difficulties 

associated with the evaluation of 

relevant tradeoffs; and (6) a divergence 

in incentives (that is, renter versus 

owner; builder versus purchaser). Other 

literature indicates that with less than 

perfect foresight and a high degree of 

uncertainty about the future, consumers 

may trade off these types of investments 

at a higher than expected rate between 

current consumption and uncertain 

future energy cost savings. 

In DOE’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: First, if 

consumers forego a purchase of a 

product in the standards case, this 

decreases sales for product 

manufacturers, and the impact on 

manufacturers attributed to lost revenue 

is included in the MIA. 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 9 of the 

NOPR 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.66

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 is 

committed to 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.67 DOE welcomes 

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. 

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Residential Dishwashers 

Table V.19 and Table V.20 summarize 

the quantitative impacts estimated for 

each TSL for residential dishwashers. 

The efficiency levels contained in each 

TSL are described in section V.A of this 

NOPR. 

TABLE V.19—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS: NATIONAL IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 

Cumulative FFC Energy Savings quads 

0.01 1.06 2.53 

NPV of Customer Benefits 2013$ billion 

3% discount rate .......................................................................... 0.1 2.1 15.7 

7% discount rate .......................................................................... 0.1 0.2 5.6 

Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction 

CO2 million metric tons ................................................................ 0.3 61.9 147.2 

NOX thousand tons ...................................................................... 3.4 126.7 312.6 

Hg tons ........................................................................................ 0.0 0.1 0.3 

N2O thousand tons ...................................................................... 0.0 0.7 1.7 

N2O thousand tons CO2eq * ........................................................ ¥1.2 196.9 462.3 

CH4 thousand tons ...................................................................... 7.0 345.1 846.2 

CH4 thousand tons CO2eq * ........................................................ 197.3 9,663.4 23,693 

SO2 thousand tons ...................................................................... ¥0.4 42.9 99.4 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76181 

TABLE V.19—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS: NATIONAL IMPACTS— 

Continued 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 

Value of Emissions Reduction 

CO2 2013$ million ** .................................................................... 2.3 to 31.3 427.4 to 6,114.5 963.8 to 14,056 

NOX—3% discount rate 2013$ million ........................................ 4.9 173.3 400.3 

NOX—7% discount rate 2013$ million ........................................ 2.4 79.2 175.4 

* CO2eq is the quantity of CO2 that would have the same GWP. 

** Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions. 

TABLE V.20—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS: CONSUMER AND

MANUFACTURER IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 * TSL 2 * TSL 3 * 

Manufacturer Impacts 

Impact to Industry NPV (2013$ million, 8.5% discount rate) ...... (43.5)–(80.5) (103.6)–(203.7) (141.1)–(239.8) 

Industry NPV (% change) ............................................................ (7.4)–(13.7) (17.7)–(34.7) (24.0)–(40.9) 

Direct Employment Impacts 

Potential Increase in Domestic Production Workers in 2018 ...... 12 186 245 

Consumer Average LCC Savings (2013$) 

Standard Dishwasher .................................................................. 2 21 112 

Compact Dishwasher ................................................................... n.a. 8 51 

Consumer Simple PBP (years) 

Standard Dishwasher .................................................................. 6.1 9.0 5.3 

Compact Dishwasher ................................................................... n.a. 4.5 2.9 

Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts 

Standard Dishwasher.

Net Cost (%) ................................................................................ 6% 53% 33% 

Compact Dishwasher.

Net Cost (%) ................................................................................ n.a. 9% 6% 

* Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. The entry ‘‘n.a.’’ means not applicable because there is no change in the standard at certain 

TSLs. 

DOE first considered TSL 3, which 

represents the max-tech efficiency 

levels. TSL 3 would save 2.53 quads of 

energy and 0.99 trillion gallons of water, 

amounts DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer 

benefit would be $5.6 billion using a 

discount rate of 7 percent, and $15.7 

billion using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 3 are 147.2 Mt of CO2, 312.6 

thousand tons of NOX, 99.4 thousand 

tons of SO2, 0.3 tons of Hg, 1.7 thousand 

tons of N2O, and 846.2 thousand tons of 

CH4. The estimated monetary value of 

the CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 3 

ranges from $963.8 million to $14,056 

million. 

At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is 

a savings of $112 for standard 

residential dishwashers and a savings of 

$51 for compact residential 

dishwashers. The simple payback 

period is 5.3 years for standard 

residential dishwashers and 2.9 years 

for compact residential dishwashers. 

The fraction of consumers experiencing 

either an LCC benefit net cost is 33 

percent for standard residential 

dishwashers and 6 percent for compact 

residential dishwashers. 

DOE testing suggested that 

manufacturers may have to consider 

extending the cycle time in order to 

maintain cleaning performance in 

dishwashers with reduced energy and 

water use at TSL 3. While DOE did not 

modify current dishwasher designs in 

order to assess how long the cycle may 

need to be extended in order to 

maintain current cleaning performance, 

DOE is concerned that current 

dishwasher designs with TSL 3 energy 

and water use may result in consumer 

utility concerns. 

At TSL 3, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $141.1 

million to a decrease of $239.8 million, 

equivalent to 24.0 percent and 40.9 

percent, respectively. Products that 

meet the efficiency standards specified 

by this TSL are forecast to represent less 

than 1 percent of shipments in the year 

leading up to amended standards. As 

such, manufacturers would have to 

redesign nearly all products by the 

expected 2019 compliance date to meet 

demand. Redesigning all units to meet 

the current max-tech efficiency levels 

would require considerable capital and 

product conversion expenditures. At 

TSL 3, the capital conversion costs total 

as much as $236.7 million, 2.5 times the 

industry annual capital expenditure in 

the year leading up to amended 

standards. DOE estimates that complete 

platform redesigns would cost the 

industry $80.2 million in product 

conversion costs. These conversion 

costs largely relate to the extensive 

research programs required to develop 

new products that meet the efficiency 

standards set forth by TSL 3. These 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
76182 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

costs are equivalent to 1.8 times the 

industry annual budget for research and 

development. As such, the conversion 

costs associated with the changes in 

products and manufacturing facilities 

required at TSL 3 would require 

significant use of manufacturers’ 

financial reserves (manufacturer capital 

pools), impacting other areas of business 

that compete for these resources and 

significantly reducing INPV. In 

addition, manufacturers could face a 

substantial impact on profitability at 

TSL 3. Because manufacturers are more 

likely to reduce their margins to 

maintain a price-competitive product at 

higher TSLs, DOE expects that TSL 3 

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 3 could 

result in a net loss to manufacturers of 

40.9 percent of INPV. DOE also notes 

that the significant impacts on the INPV 

of compact residential dishwasher 

manufacturers, as discussed in V.B.2.a, 

would likely result in the elimination of 

countertop products from the market. 

The Secretary tentatively concludes 

that at TSL 3 for residential 

dishwashers, the benefits of energy 

savings, water savings, positive NPV of 

consumer benefits, emission reductions, 

and the estimated monetary value of the 

CO2 emissions reductions would be 

outweighed by the economic burden on 

some consumers, the potential burden 

on all consumers from loss of product 

utility, and the impacts on 

manufacturers, including the conversion 

costs and profit margin impacts that 

could result in a large reduction in 

INPV. Consequently, the Secretary has 

tentatively concluded that TSL 3 is not 

economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 2. TSL 2 

would save 1.06 quads of energy and 

0.24 trillion gallons of water, amounts 

DOE considers significant. Under TSL 2, 

the NPV of consumer benefit would be 

$0.2 billion using a discount rate of 7 

percent, and $2.1 billion using a 

discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 2 are 61.9 Mt of CO2, 126.7 

thousand tons of NOX, 42.9 thousand 

tons of SO2, 0.1 ton of Hg, 0.7 thousand 

tons of N2O, and 345.1 thousand tons of 

CH4. The estimated monetary value of 

the CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 2 

ranges from $427.4 million to $6,114.5 

million. 

At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is 

a savings of $21 for standard residential 

dishwashers and a savings of $8 for 

compact residential dishwashers. The 

simple payback period is 9.0 years for 

standard residential dishwashers and 

4.5 years for compact residential 

dishwashers. The fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC net cost is 53 

percent for standard residential 

dishwashers and 9 percent for compact 

residential dishwashers. 

At TSL 2, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $103.6 

million to a decrease of $203.7 million, 

decreases of 17.7 percent and 34.7 

percent, respectively. Products that 

meet the efficiency standards specified 

by this TSL represent less than 5 

percent of shipments in the year leading 

up to amended standards. As such, 

manufacturers would have to overhaul a 

significant fraction of products by the 

2019 compliance date to meet demand, 

although DOE testing suggested that the 

design changes would not require 

extension of the cycle time in order to 

maintain cleaning performance in 

dishwashers at the energy and water use 

associated with TSL 2. Redesigning 

significant component systems or 

developing entirely new platforms to 

meet the efficiency levels specified by 

this TSL would require considerable 

capital and product conversion 

expenditures. At TSL 2, the estimated 

capital conversion costs total as much as 

$219.7 million, which is 2.3 times the 

industry annual capital expenditure in 

the year leading up to amended 

standards. DOE estimates that the 

redesigns necessary to meet these 

standards would cost the industry $61.7 

million in product conversion costs. 

These conversion costs largely relate to 

the research programs required to 

develop products that meet the 

efficiency standards set forth by TSL 2, 

and are 1.4 times the industry annual 

budget for research and development in 

the year leading up to amended 

standards. As such, the conversion costs 

associated with the changes in products 

and manufacturing facilities required at 

TSL 2 would still require significant use 

of manufacturers’ financial reserves 

(manufacturer capital pools), impacting 

other areas of business that compete for 

these resources and significantly 

reducing INPV. Because manufacturers 

are more likely to reduce their margins 

to maintain a price-competitive product 

at higher TSLs, DOE expects that TSL 2 

would yield impacts closer to the high 

end of the range of INPV impacts as 

indicated by the preservation of EBIT 

markup scenario. If the high end of the 

range of impacts is reached, as DOE 

expects, TSL 2 could result in a net loss 

of 34.7 percent in INPV to 

manufacturers of residential 

dishwashers. 

The Secretary tentatively concludes 

that at TSL 2 for residential 

dishwashers, the benefits of energy 

savings, water savings, positive NPV of 

consumer benefits, emission reductions, 

and the estimated monetary value of the 

CO2 emissions reductions would 

outweigh the negative impacts on some 

consumers and on manufacturers, 

including the conversion costs that 

could result in a reduction in INPV for 

manufacturers. 

After considering the analysis and the 

benefits and burdens of TSL 2, the 

Secretary tentatively 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 today proposes 

TSL 2 for residential dishwashers. The 

proposed amended energy conservation 

standards for residential dishwashers, 

which are a maximum allowable annual 

energy use and maximum allowable percycle water consumption, are shown in 

Table V.21. 

TABLE V.21—PROPOSED AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS

Product class 

Compliance date: May 30, 2019 

Maximum 

annual energy 

use * 

Maximum 

per-cycle water 

consumption 

1. Standard (≥8 place settings plus 6 serving pieces) ...................................................................................... 234 kWh/year ... 3.1 gal/cycle. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76183 

68To convert the time-series of costs and benefits 

into annualized values, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2014, the year used for discounting the 

NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the 

benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated 

with each year’s shipments in the year in which the 

shipments occur (2020, 2030, etc.), and then 

discounted the present value from each year to 

2014. The calculation uses discount rates of 3 and 

7 percent for all costs and benefits except for the 

value of CO2 reductions, for which DOE used casespecific discount rates, as shown in Table V.22. 

Using the present value, DOE then calculated the 

fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, 

starting in the compliance year, that yields the same 

present value. 

TABLE V.21—PROPOSED AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS—Continued 

Product class 

Compliance date: May 30, 2019 

Maximum 

annual energy 

use * 

Maximum 

per-cycle water 

consumption 

2. Compact (<8 place settings plus 6 serving pieces) ...................................................................................... 203 kWh/year ... 3.1 gal/cycle. 

* Annual energy use, expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, is calculated as: The sum of the annual standby electrical energy in kWh and 

the product of (1) the representative average dishwasher use cycles per year and (2) the sum of machine electrical energy consumption per 

cycle in kWh, the total water energy consumption per cycle in kWh, and, for dishwashers having a truncated normal cycle, the drying energy 

consumption divided by 2 in kWh. A truncated normal cycle is defined as the normal cycle interrupted to eliminate the power-dry feature after the 

termination of the last rinse option. 

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 2013$, 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.68 The value of the CO2

reductions, otherwise known as the 

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 

2019–2048. 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.22 shows the annualized 

values for residential dishwashers under 

TSL 2, expressed in 2013$. 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 

$40.5/ton in 2015 (in 2013$), the cost of 

the standards for residential 

dishwashers in today’s rule is $413 

million per year in increased equipment 

costs, while the annualized benefits are 

$437 million per year in reduced 

equipment operating costs, $113 million 

in CO2 reductions, and $8.37 million in 

reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the 

net benefit amounts to $146 million per 

year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for 

all benefits and costs and the SCC series 

corresponding to a value of $40.5/ton in 

2015 (in 2013$), the cost of the 

standards for residential dishwashers in 

today’s rule is $406 million per year in 

increased equipment costs, while the 

benefits are $529 million per year in 

reduced operating costs, $113 million in 

CO2 reductions, and $9.95 million in 

reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the 

net benefit amounts to $246 million per 

year. 

TABLE V.22—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED AMENDED STANDARDS (TSL 2) FOR RESIDENTIAL

DISHWASHERS SOLD IN 2019–2048 

Discount rate 

Million 2013$/year 

Primary estimate * Low net benefits 

estimate * 

High net benefits 

estimate * 

Benefits 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ............... 7% .............................. 437 ............................. 388 ............................. 506. 

3% .............................. 529 ............................. 462 ............................. 624. 

CO2 Reduction at $12.0/t ** ........................... 5% .............................. 34 ............................... 30 ............................... 39. 

CO2 Reduction at $40.5/t ** ........................... 3% .............................. 113 ............................. 100 ............................. 131. 

CO2 Reduction at $62.4/t ** ........................... 2.5% ........................... 165 ............................. 146 ............................. 191. 

CO2 Reduction at $119/t ** ............................ 3% .............................. 351 ............................. 311 ............................. 406. 

NOX Reduction at $2,684/t ............................ 7% .............................. 8.37 ............................ 7.53 ............................ 9.49. 

3% .............................. 9.95 ............................ 8.86 ............................ 11.43. 

Total † ............................................................. 7% plus CO2 range .... 479 to 796 .................. 425 to 706 .................. 555 to 921. 

7% .............................. 558 ............................. 496 ............................. 647. 

3% plus CO2 range .... 572 to 890 .................. 501 to 782 .................. 674 to 1,041. 

3% .............................. 652 ............................. 572 ............................. 766. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
76184 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.22—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED AMENDED STANDARDS (TSL 2) FOR RESIDENTIAL

DISHWASHERS SOLD IN 2019–2048—Continued 

Discount rate 

Million 2013$/year 

Primary estimate * Low net benefits 

estimate * 

High net benefits 

estimate * 

Costs 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ........... 7% .............................. 413 ............................. 468 ............................. 371. 

3% .............................. 406 ............................. 465 ............................. 361. 

Total Net Benefits 

Total † ............................................................. 7% plus CO2 range .... 66 to 383 .................... ¥43 to 238 ................ 183 to 550. 

7% .............................. 146 ............................. 28 ............................... 275. 

3% plus CO2 range .... 167 to 484 .................. 36 to 317 .................... 313 to 680. 

3% .............................. 246 ............................. 106 ............................. 405. 

* The results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2048 from the dishwashers purchased from 2019 through 2048. Costs incurred 

by manufacturers, some of which may be incurred prior to 2019 in preparation for the rule, are not directly included, but are indirectly included as 

part of incremental equipment costs. The extent of the costs and benefits will depend on the projected price trends of dishwashers, as the consumer demand for dishwashers is a function of dishwasher prices. The Primary, Low Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates utilize forecasts of 

energy prices and housing starts from the AEO 2014 Reference case, Low Estimate, and High Estimate, respectively. In addition, incremental 

product costs reflect a medium decline rate for projected product price trends in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section 

IV.H.2.a of this notice. 

** The CO2 values represent global values (in 2013$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2013 under several scenarios. The values of 

$12.0, $40.5, and $62.4 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The 

value of $119 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. † Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3% discount rate, which is $40.5/ton in 2015 

(in 2013$). 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. 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 

Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ 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. 58 FR 

51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). The problems that 

today’s standards address are as follows. (1) There is a lack of consumer 

information and/or information 

processing capability about energy 

efficiency opportunities in the 

residential dishwasher 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 dishwashers 

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 a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866. DOE presented 

to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB 

for review the draft rule and other 

documents prepared for this 

rulemaking, including a regulatory 

impact analysis (RIA), and has 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. 

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 

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. 

DOE emphasizes 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 NOPR is consistent with 

these principles, including the 

requirement that, to the extent 

permitted by law, benefits justify costs 

and that net benefits are maximized. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

requires preparation of an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for 

any rule that by law must be proposed 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76185 

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. (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) As 

required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking’’ 67 FR 53461 

(Aug. 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 Web site (http://energy.gov/

gc/office-general-counsel). 

For manufacturers of residential 

dishwashers, 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 

http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/

files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. 

Residential dishwasher manufacturing 

is classified under NAICS 335228, 

‘‘Other Major Household Appliance 

Manufacturing.’’ The SBA sets a 

threshold of 500 employees or less for 

an entity to be considered as a small 

business for this category. 

To estimate the number of small 

businesses which could be impacted by 

the amended energy conservation 

standards, DOE conducted a market 

survey using all available public 

information to identify potential small 

manufacturers. To identify small 

business manufacturers, DOE surveyed 

the May 2012 direct final rule for 

residential dishwasher energy 

conservation standards, the AHAM 

membership directory, several product 

databases (DOE’s Compliance 

Certification Database, CEC, and 

ENERGY STAR databases) and 

individual company Web sites. DOE 

screened out companies that did not 

themselves manufacture products 

covered by this rulemaking, did not 

meet the definition of a ‘‘small 

business,’’ or are foreign owned and 

operated. 

Approximately half of the total 

domestic market for residential 

dishwashers is manufactured in the 

United States by one corporation. 

Together, this manufacturer and three 

other manufacturers do not meet the 

definition of a small business 

manufacturer and comprise 99 percent 

of the residential dishwasher market. 

The small portion of the remaining 

residential dishwasher market 

(approximately 69,000 units) is supplied 

by a combination of approximately 20 

companies, all of which have small 

market shares. All of these companies 

are either foreign-owned and operated, 

re-brand dishwashers manufactured by 

other companies, or exceed the SBA’s 

employment threshold for consideration 

as a small business under the 

appropriate NAICS code. Therefore, 

DOE did not identify any domestic 

small business manufacturers of 

residential dishwashers. 

Based on the discussion above, DOE 

certifies that the standards for 

residential dishwashers set forth in this 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

regulatory flexibility analysis for this 

rulemaking. DOE will transmit this 

certification to the SBA as required by 

5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Manufacturers of residential 

dishwashers must certify to DOE that 

their products comply with any 

applicable energy conservation 

standards. In certifying compliance, 

manufacturers must test their products 

according to the DOE test procedures for 

residential dishwashers, 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 dishwashers. 76 FR 12422 

(Mar. 7, 2011). The collection-ofinformation 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. 

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. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969, DOE has determined that the 

proposed rule fits within the category of 

actions included in Categorical 

Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and otherwise 

meets the requirements for application 

of a CX. See 10 CFR part 1021, appendix 

B, B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and appendix B, 

B(1)–(5). The proposed 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 proposed rule. DOE’s CX 

determination for this proposed rule is 

available at http://cxnepa.energy.gov/. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

imposes certain requirements on 

Federal agencies formulating and 

implementing policies or regulations 

that preempt State law or that have 

Federalism implications. 64 FR 43255 

(Aug. 10, 1999). 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 proposed 

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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
76186 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

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 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 

proposed rule meets the relevant 

standards of Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

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, 

as codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a 

proposed 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 timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘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 http://

energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. 

Although today’s proposed rule does 

not contain a Federal intergovernmental 

mandate, it may require expenditures of 

$100 million or more on the private 

sector. Specifically, the proposed rule 

will likely result in a final rule that 

could require expenditures of $100 

million or more. Such expenditures may 

include: (1) Investment in research and 

development and in capital 

expenditures by residential dishwashers 

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 

dishwashers, starting at the compliance 

date for the applicable standard. 

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 proposed 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 

this NOPR and the ‘‘Regulatory Impact 

Analysis’’ section of the TSD for this 

proposed rule respond to those 

requirements. 

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 proposed 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(g) and (o), 

today’s proposed rule would establish 

energy conservation standards for 

residential dishwashers 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 this 

proposed rule. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

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 

rulemaking 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. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 

(Mar. 18, 1988), that this regulation 

would not result in any takings that 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act of 2001 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. (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) 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 NOPR under the OMB and DOE 

guidelines and has concluded that it is 

consistent with applicable policies in 

those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ requires Federal 

agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA 

at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects 

for any proposed significant energy 

action. 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76187 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed 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 tentatively concluded that 

today’s regulatory action, which sets 

forth energy conservation standards for 

residential dishwashers, is not a 

significant energy action because the 

proposed 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 proposed rule. 

L. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

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 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. 

VII. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting 

The time, date, and location of the 

public meeting are listed in the DATES

and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning 

of this proposed rule. If you plan to 

attend the public meeting, please notify 

Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 

or Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. As 

explained in the ADDRESSES section, 

foreign nationals visiting DOE 

Headquarters are subject to advance 

security screening procedures. 

In addition, you can attend the public 

meeting via webinar. Webinar 

registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the 

capabilities available to webinar 

participants will be published on DOE’s 

Web site at: http://

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx?

ruleid=106. Participants are responsible 

for ensuring their systems are 

compatible with the webinar software. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

Any person who has plans to present 

a prepared general statement may 

request that copies of his or her 

statement be made available at the 

public meeting. Such persons may 

submit requests, along with an advance 

electronic copy of their statement in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format, to the appropriate address 

shown in the ADDRESSES section at the 

beginning of this proposed rule. The 

request and advance copy of statements 

must be received at least one week 

before the public meeting and may be 

emailed, hand-delivered, or sent by 

mail. DOE prefers to receive requests 

and advance copies via email. Please 

include a telephone number to enable 

DOE staff to make follow-up contact, if 

needed. 

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the public meeting and may 

also use a professional facilitator to aid 

discussion. The meeting will not be a 

judicial or evidentiary-type public 

hearing, but DOE will conduct it in 

accordance with section 336 of EPCA. 

(42 U.S.C. 6306) A court reporter will be 

present to record the proceedings and 

prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the 

right to schedule the order of 

presentations and to establish the 

procedures governing the conduct of the 

public meeting. After the public 

meeting, interested parties may submit 

further comments on the proceedings as 

well as on any aspect of the rulemaking 

until the end of the comment period. 

The public meeting will be conducted 

in an informal, conference style. DOE 

will present summaries of comments 

received before the public meeting, 

allow time for prepared general 

statements by participants, and 

encourage all interested parties to share 

their views on issues affecting this 

rulemaking. Each participant will be 

allowed to make a general statement 

(within time limits determined by DOE), 

before the discussion of specific topics. 

DOE will allow, as time permits, other 

participants to comment briefly on any 

general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly and 

comment on statements made by others. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions by DOE and by other 

participants concerning these issues. 

DOE representatives may also ask 

questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this 

rulemaking. The official conducting the 

public meeting will accept additional 

comments or questions from those 

attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the above procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

public meeting. 

A transcript of the public meeting will 

be included in the docket, which can be 

viewed as described in the Docket 

section at the beginning of this proposed 

rule. In addition, any person may buy a 

copy of the transcript from the 

transcribing reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule before or after the public meeting, 

but no later than the date provided in 

the DATES section at the beginning of 

this proposed rule. Interested parties 

may submit comments, data, and other 

information using any of the methods 

described in the ADDRESSES section at 

the beginning of this proposed rule. 

Submitting comments via 

regulations.gov. The regulations.gov 

Web page will require you to provide 

your name and contact information. 

Your contact information will be 

viewable to DOE Building Technologies 

staff only. Your contact information will 

not be publicly viewable except for your 

first and last names, organization name 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
76188 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(if any), and submitter representative 

name (if any). If your comment is not 

processed properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment itself or in any 

documents attached to your comment. 

Any information that you do not want 

to be publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Otherwise, persons viewing comments 

will see only first and last names, 

organization names, correspondence 

containing comments, and any 

documents submitted with the 

comments. 

Do not submit to regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)). Comments submitted through 

regulations.gov cannot be claimed as 

CBI. Comments received through the 

Web site will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section below. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through regulations.gov before posting. 

Normally, comments will be posted 

within a few days of being submitted. 

However, if large volumes of comments 

are being processed simultaneously, 

your comment may not be viewable for 

up to several weeks. Please keep the 

comment tracking number that 

regulations.gov provides after you have 

successfully uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery/courier, or mail. Comments and 

documents submitted via email, hand 

delivery, or mail also will be posted to 

regulations.gov. If you do not want your 

personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information in a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. If you 

submit via mail or hand delivery/

courier, please provide all items on a 

CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to 

submit printed copies. No facsimiles 

(faxes) will be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, that are written in English, and 

that are free of any defects or viruses. 

Documents should not contain special 

characters or any form of encryption 

and, if possible, they should carry the 

electronic signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit via email, postal mail, or 

hand delivery/courier two well-marked 

copies: one copy of the document 

marked confidential including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

non-confidential with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. 

Submit these documents via email or on 

a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own 

determination about the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) 

A description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure; (6) when 

such information might lose its 

confidential character due to the 

passage of time; and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

1. DOE requests comment on the 

efficiency levels selected for its analysis. 

Specifically, DOE requests feedback on 

whether cleaning performance or any 

other consumer utility is affected at any 

of the analyzed efficiency levels. 

2. DOE requests comment on the 

estimated MPCs for each of the analyzed 

efficiency levels. DOE seeks input on 

what design options manufacturers are 

likely to incorporate into residential 

dishwashers at each of the analyzed 

efficiency levels, and their associated 

costs. 

3. DOE requests comment on what 

impact, if any, the proposed energy 

conservation standards would have on 

domestic manufacturing facilities and 

their associated employment. DOE 

requests information on whether 

domestic manufacturers would move 

production overseas or source an 

increased number of products from 

foreign OEMs under the proposed 

standards. 

4. DOE requests comment on the 

potential rebound effect from setting the 

proposed energy conservation standards 

for standard-size dishwashers and 

compact dishwashers. DOE requests 

comments on the potential technology 

options identified by DOE for improving 

the efficiency of residential dishwashers 

and its screening analysis used to select 

the most viable options for 

consideration in setting today’s 

proposed standards. (see sections IV.A 

and B of this notice.) 

5. DOE requests comment on its 

estimate that standards do not impact a 

consumer’s decision to replace or repair 

a failed dishwasher. Specifically, DOE 

seeks any data that indicate how 

dishwasher replace versus repair 

decisions are impacted by increased 

total installed cost, increased repair 

cost, and energy cost savings. 

6. DOE requests comment and 

information on the number of annual 

dishwasher cycles. 

7. DOE requests comment on utility 

issues, if any, that consumers may face 

under the proposed energy conservation 

standards. 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of today’s proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76189 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, and 

Small businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 

10, 2014. 

David T. Danielson, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE proposes to amend part 

430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

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. 

§ 430.3 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 430.3 is amended by: 

■ a. Removing paragraph (h)(2); 

■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(3) 

through (7) as (h)(2) through (6), 

respectively; and 

■ c. Removing ‘‘C1’’ from redesignated 

paragraph (h)(2) and adding ‘‘C’’ in its 

place. 

Appendix C to Subpart B of Part 430— 

[Removed] 

■ 3. Appendix C to subpart B of part 430 

is removed. 

Appendix C1 to Subpart B of Part 430— 

[Redesignated as Appendix C Subpart B 

of Part 430] 

■ 4. Appendix C1 to subpart B of part 

430 is redesignated as appendix C to 

subpart B of part 430. 

■ 5. In § 430.32 add paragraph (f)(4) to 

read as follows: 

§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation 

standards and their compliance dates. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(4) All dishwashers manufactured on 

or after [Date 3 years after the 

publication in the Federal Register of 

the final rule] shall meet the following 

standard— 

(i) Standard size dishwashers shall 

not exceed 234 kwh/year and 3.1 

gallons per cycle. 

(ii) Compact size dishwashers shall 

not exceed 203 kwh/year and 3.1 

gallons per cycle. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–29519 Filed 12–18–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2