Home/Federal/Federal Register/2023-03862

Proposed Rule2023-03862

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

March 3, 2023

Issuing agencies

Energy Department

Abstract

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended ("EPCA"), prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including residential clothes washers ("RCWs"). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE") to periodically determine whether more-stringent, standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. In this notice of proposed rulemaking ("NOPR"), DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards for RCWs, and also announces a public meeting to receive comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and results.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 42 (Friday, March 3, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 42 (Friday, March 3, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13520-13621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03862]

[[Page 13519]]

Vol. 88

Friday,

No. 42

March 3, 2023

Part II

Department of Energy

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

10 CFR Part 430

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Residential Clothes Washers; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 13520]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014]
RIN 1904-AD98

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Residential Clothes Washers

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public
meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including residential
clothes washers (``RCWs''). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of
Energy (``DOE'') to periodically determine whether more-stringent,
standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified,
and would result in significant energy savings. In this notice of
proposed rulemaking (``NOPR''), DOE proposes amended energy
conservation standards for RCWs, and also announces a public meeting to
receive comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and
results.

DATES:
Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on Tuesday,
March 28, 2023, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section VII of this
document, ``Public Participation,'' for webinar registration
information, participant instructions, and information about the
capabilities available to webinar participants.
Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding
this NOPR no later than May 2, 2023.
Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed
standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in
the ADDRESSES section on or before April 3, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, under docket
number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments,
identified by docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014, by any of the
following methods:
Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d596babba6a0b8b0a796b9baa1bdb0a682b4a6bdb0a7e7e5e4e2868191e5e5e4e195b0b0fbb1bab0fbb2baa3">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Include the
docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014 in the subject line of the message.
Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program,
U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant
Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445.
If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not
necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section VII of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. All documents in the
docket are listed in the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> index. However, not all
documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014</a>. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See
section VII of this document for information on how to submit comments
through <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.
EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites
input from market participants and other interested persons with views
on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested
persons may contact the Division at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dbbeb5bea9bca2f5a8afbab5bfbaa9bfa89baea8bfb4b1f5bcb4ad">[email&#160;protected]</a> on or
before the date specified in the DATES section. Please indicate in the
``Subject'' line of your email the title and Docket Number of this
proposed rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-5649. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b2f3c2c2dedbd3dcd1d7e1c6d3dcd6d3c0d6c1e3c7d7c1c6dbdddcc1f2d7d79cd6ddd79cd5ddc4">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
Ms. Melanie Lampton, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 751-5157. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#eaa78f868b84838fc4a68b879a9e8584aa829bc48e858fc48d859c">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting,
contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202)
287-1445 or by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#98d9e8e8f4f1f9f6fbfdcbecf9f6fcf9eafcebc9edfdebecf1f7f6ebd8fdfdb6fcf7fdb6fff7ee">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
B. Impact on Manufacturers
C. National Benefits and Costs
D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Residential Clothes
Washers
C. Deviation From Appendix A
III. General Discussion
A. General Comments
B. Scope of Coverage
C. Test Procedure
1. History of Appendix J
2. Metrics
3. Test Cloth
4. Other Test Procedure-Related Comments
D. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
E. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
F. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC
and PBP)
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Product Classes
2. Technology Options
B. Screening Analysis
1. Screened-Out Technologies
2. Remaining Technologies

[[Page 13521]]

C. Engineering Analysis
1. Preliminary Analysis Prediction Tool
2. Efficiency Analysis
a. Baseline Efficiency Levels
b. Higher Efficiency Levels
c. Semi-Automatic
3. Cost Analysis
4. Cost-Efficiency Results
5. Translations
a. Preliminary Analysis Approach
b. NODA Approach
c. NOPR Approach
d. Alternative Approaches
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy and Water Use Analysis
1. Number of Annual Cycles
2. Rebound Effect
3. Water Heating Energy Use
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Consumer Product Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy and Water Consumption
4. Energy and Water Prices
a. Energy Prices
b. Water and Wastewater Prices
5. Repair and Maintenance Costs
6. Product Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
9. Payback Period Analysis
10. Other Issues
G. Shipments Analysis
H. National Impact Analysis
1. Product Efficiency Trends
2. National Energy and Water Savings
3. Net Present Value Analysis
I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
1. Low-Income Households
2. Senior-Only Households
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
b. Shipments Projections
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios
3. Manufacturer Interviews
a. Product Classes
b. Ability To Serve Certain Consumer Segments
c. Supply Chain Constraints
4. Discussion of MIA Comments
K. Emissions Analysis
1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a. Social Cost of Carbon
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
M. Utility Impact Analysis
N. Employment Impact Analysis
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
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. Direct Impacts on Employment
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy and Water Savings
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
a. Performance Characteristics
b. Availability of ``Traditional'' Agitators
c. Water Levels
d. Availability of Portable Products
e. Conclusion
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
7. Other Factors
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
C. Conclusion
1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Residential
Clothes Washer Standards
2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and
Regulations
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Information Quality
VII. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
C. Conduct of the Webinar
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency
of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part B of EPCA \2\ established the Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6309) These products include consumer (residential) \3\
clothes washers (``RCWs''), the subject of this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
\3\ DOE uses the ``residential'' nomenclature and ``RCW''
abbreviation for consumer clothes washers in order to distinguish
from the ``CCW'' abbreviation used for commercial clothes washers,
which are also regulated equipment under EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that DOE determines 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)) EPCA also provides that not later
than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending
a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that
standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of
proposed rulemaking including new proposed energy conservation
standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C.
6295(m))
In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed
in this document, DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards
for RCWs. The proposed standards, which are expressed in terms of
energy efficiency ratio (``EER'') measured in pounds per kilowatt-hour
per cycle (``lb/kWh/cycle'') and water efficiency ratio (``WER'')
measured in pounds per gallon per cycle (``lb/gal/cycle'') as measured
using the test procedure at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(``CFR''), part 430, subpart B, appendix J (``appendix J''), are shown
in Table I.1. These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all
RCWs listed in Table I.1 manufactured in, or imported into, the United
States starting on the date 3 years after the publication in the
Federal Register of the final rule for this rulemaking. As shown in
Table I.1 and discussed further in IV.A.1 of this document, DOE
proposes standards for separate RCW product classes that are

[[Page 13522]]

defined based on axis of loading (i.e., top-loading or front-loading),
clothes container capacity (measured in cubic feet (``ft\3\'')), and
whether the product is automatic or semi-automatic.

Table I.1--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Residential
Clothes Washers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum energy Minimum water
Product class efficiency ratio efficiency ratio
(lb/kWh/cycle) (lb/gal/cycle)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers.... 2.12 0.27
Automatic Clothes Washers:
Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact 3.79 0.29
(less than 1.6 ft\3\
capacity)....................
Top-Loading, Standard-Size 4.78 0.63
(1.6 ft\3\ or greater
capacity)....................
Front-Loading, Compact (less 5.02 0.71
than 3.0 ft\3\ capacity).....
Front-Loading, Standard-Size 5.73 0.77
(3.0 ft\3\ or greater
capacity)....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I.2 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the
proposed standards, represented by trial standard level (``TSL'') 4, on
consumers of RCWs, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (``LCC'')
savings and the simple payback period (``PBP'').\4\ The average LCC
savings are positive for all product classes, and the PBP is less than
the average lifetime of RCWs, which is estimated to be 13.7 years (see
section IV.F.6 of this document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected
by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency
distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market
in the compliance year in the absence of new or amended standards
(see section IV.F.8 of this document). The simple PBP, which is
designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative
to the baseline product (see section IV.F.9 of this document).

Table I.2--Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on
Consumers of Residential Clothes Washers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC Simple payback
Product class savings (2021$) period (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers.... $329 0.3
Automatic Clothes Washers:
Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact n.a. n.a.
(less than 1.6 ft\3\
capacity) *..................
Top-Loading, Standard-Size 134 5.9
(1.6 ft\3\ or greater
capacity)....................
Front-Loading, Compact (less 7 9.1
than 3.0 ft\3\ capacity).....
Front-Loading, Standard-Size 19 3.2
(3.0 ft\3\ or greater
capacity)....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The entry ``n.a.'' means not applicable because the standard at the
proposed TSL is the baseline.

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on
consumers is described in section IV.F of this document.

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 (2022-2056). Using a real discount rate of
9.3 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of RCWs in
the case without amended standards is $1,738.3 million in 2021$. Under
the proposed standards, the change in INPV is estimated to range from -
30.5 percent to -20.8 percent, which is approximately -$530.2 million
to -$361.6 million. In order to bring products into compliance with
amended standards, it is estimated that the industry would incur total
conversion costs of $690.8 million.
DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on
manufacturers is described in section IV.J of this document. The
analytic results of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') are
presented in section V.B.2 of this document.

C. National Benefits and Costs 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2021
dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation
standards for RCWs would save a significant amount of energy and water.
Relative to the case without amended standards, the lifetime energy and
water savings for RCWs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in
the anticipated year of compliance with the standards (2027-2056)
amount to 1.45 quadrillion British thermal units (``Btu''), or quads of
energy and 2.53 trillion gallons of water, respectively.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'') energy
savings. FFC energy savings 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. For more
information on the FFC metric, see section IV.H.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cumulative net present value (``NPV'') of total consumer
benefits of the proposed standards for RCWs ranges from $5.14 billion
(at a 7-percent discount rate) to $14.52 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 and
installation costs for RCWs purchased in 2027-2056.
In addition, the proposed standards for RCWs are projected to yield
significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the proposed
standards would result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same
period as for energy savings) of 53.21 million metric tons (``Mt'') \7\
of carbon dioxide (``CO<INF>2</INF>''), 19.93 thousand tons of sulfur
dioxide (``SO<INF>2</INF>''), 92.39 thousand tons of nitrogen

[[Page 13523]]

oxides (``NO<INF>X</INF>''), 411.43 thousand tons of methane
(``CH<INF>4</INF>''), 0.48 thousand tons of nitrous oxide
(``N<INF>2</INF>O''), and 0.13 tons of mercury (``Hg'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for
emissions other than CO<INF>2</INF> are presented in short tons.
\8\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-
standards case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy
Outlook 2022 (``AEO2022''). AEO2022 represents current federal and
state legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the
time of its preparation. See section IV.K of this document for
further discussion of AEO2022 assumptions that effect air pollutant
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in
greenhouse gases (``GHG'') using four different estimates of the social
cost of CO<INF>2</INF> (``SC-CO<INF>2</INF>''), the social cost of
methane (``SC-CH<INF>4</INF>''), and the social cost of nitrous oxide
(``SC-N<INF>2</INF>O''). Together these represent the social cost of
GHG (``SC-GHG'').\9\ DOE used interim SC-GHG values developed by an
Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases
(``IWG'').\10\ The derivation of these values is discussed in section
IV.L of this document. For presentational purposes, the climate
benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount
rate are estimated to be $2.71 billion. DOE does not have a single
central SC-GHG point estimate and it emphasizes the importance and
value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-
GHG estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No.
22-30087) granted the Federal government's emergency motion for stay
pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction
issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a
result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is
no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's
appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other
things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that
case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying
upon'' the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse
gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize
the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in
this rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction
and presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible
under law.
\10\ See Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse
Gases, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane,
and Nitrous Oxide. Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990,
Washington, DC, February 2021. <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf">www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions using benefit per ton estimates
from the scientific literature, as discussed in section IV.L of this
document. DOE estimated the present value of the health benefits would
be $1.91 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $4.57 billion
using a 3-percent discount rate.\11\ DOE is currently only monetizing
(for SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>) PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor
health benefits and (for NO<INF>X</INF>) ozone precursor health
benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other
effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions
reductions resulting from the considered TSLs for the purpose of
complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table I.3 summarizes the economic benefits and costs expected to
result from the proposed standards for RCWs. There are other important
unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate benefits,
unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of toxic air
pollutants and other emissions, unquantified energy security benefits,
and distributional effects, among others.

Table I.3--Summary of Monetized Economic Benefits and Costs of Proposed
Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers
[TSL 4]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Billion 2021$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings...................... 27.83
Climate Benefits *................................... 2.71
Health Benefits **................................... 4.57
------------------
Total Benefits [dagger].......................... 35.11
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].......... 13.31
------------------
Net Benefits..................................... 14.52
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings...................... 12.73
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)................ 2.71
Health Benefits **................................... 1.91
------------------
Total Benefits [dagger].......................... 17.35
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].......... 7.58
------------------
Net Benefits..................................... 5.14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with RCWs
shipped in 2027-2056. These results include benefits to consumers
which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the
social cost of carbon (SC-CO2), methane (SC-CH4), and nitrous oxide
(SC-N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent
discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate) (see
section IV.L of this document). Together these represent the global SC-
GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits
associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are
shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087)
granted the Federal government's emergency motion for stay pending
appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in
Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of
the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in
effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's appeal of that
injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the
preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from
``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the
interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases--which were
issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this rule, DOE has
reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents
monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.

[[Page 13524]]

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX
and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5
precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health
benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other
effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5
emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and
health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. For presentation
purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent
cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount
rate, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits
calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as
installation costs.

The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be
expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the
total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating
costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and
installation costs, plus (3) the value of climate and benefits of
emission reductions, all annualized.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2021, 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., 2030), and then discounted the present value from each year
to 2021. The calculation uses discount rates of 3 and 7 percent for
all costs and benefits. 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 national operating savings are domestic private U.S. consumer
monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered
products and are measured for the lifetime of RCWs shipped in 2027-
2056. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a
result of the proposed standards are also calculated based on the
lifetime of RCWs shipped in 2027-2056. Total benefits for both the 3-
percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average GHG social
costs with 3-percent discount rate. Estimates of SC-GHG values are
presented for all four discount rates in section IV.L of this document.
Table I.4 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs
associated with the proposed standard, expressed in terms of annualized
values. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
health benefits from reduced NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards
proposed in this rule is $800.8 million per year in increased equipment
costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $1,344.2 million in
reduced equipment operating costs, $155.7 million in climate benefits,
and $202.0 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit
would amount to $901.1 million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated cost of the proposed standards is $764.0 million per year in
increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are
$1,598.0 million in reduced operating costs, $155.7 million in climate
benefits, and $262.2 million in health benefits. In this case, the net
benefit would amount to $1,251.8 million per year.

Table I.4--Annualized Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Residential
Clothes Washers
[TSL 4]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million 2021$/year
-----------------------------------------------
Low-net- High-net-
Primary benefits benefits
estimate estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings................................. 1,598.0 1,544.5 1,657.8
Climate Benefits *.............................................. 155.7 151.7 159.7
Health Benefits **.............................................. 262.2 255.8 268.9
-----------------------------------------------
Total Benefits[dagger]...................................... 2,015.9 1,952.0 2,086.4
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]..................... 764.0 778.7 695.5
-----------------------------------------------
Net Benefits................................................ 1,251.8 1,173.4 1,390.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings................................. 1,344.2 1,302.8 1,389.7
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)........................... 155.7 151.7 159.7
Health Benefits **.............................................. 202.0 197.5 206.7
-----------------------------------------------
Total Benefits [dagger]..................................... 1,701.9 1,652.0 1,756.1
Consumer Incremental Product Costs[Dagger]...................... 800.8 813.3 737.9
-----------------------------------------------
Net Benefits................................................ 901.1 838.7 1,018.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with RCWs shipped in 2027-2056. These results
include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056. The Primary, Low
Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2022 Reference
case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental
equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Net
Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive
projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.3 of this document. Note that the Benefits
and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.

[[Page 13525]]

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this
document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG
at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point
estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four
sets of SC-GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the
Federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction
issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the
preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's appeal of that
injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in
that case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the interim estimates of the
social cost of greenhouse gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As
reflected in this rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized
benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
(for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total benefits include for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-
GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.

DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the proposed standards is
described in sections IV.H, IV.K and IV.L of this document.

D. Conclusion

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. Specifically, with regards to
technological feasibility, products achieving these standard levels are
already commercially available for all product classes covered by this
proposal. As for economic justification, DOE's analysis shows that the
benefits of the proposed standard exceed, to a great extent, the
burdens of the proposed standards.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
NOx and SO<INF>2</INF> reduction benefits, and a 3-percent discount
rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the proposed
standards for RCWs is $800.8 million per year in increased product
costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $1,344.2 million in
reduced product operating costs, $155.7 million in climate benefits and
$202.0 million in health benefits. The net benefit amounts to $901.1
million per year.
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\13\ For
example, some covered products and equipment have substantial energy
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than
products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates
the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration
in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures
for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR
70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As previously mentioned, the proposed standards are projected to
result in estimated national energy savings of 1.45 quads FFC, the
equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 16 million homes. The
NPV of consumer benefit for these projected energy savings is $5.14
billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $14.52 billion using a
discount rate of 3 percent. The cumulative emissions reductions
associated with these energy savings are 53.21 Mt of CO<INF>2</INF>,
19.93 thousand tons of SO<INF>2</INF>, 92.39 thousand tons of
NO<INF>X</INF>, 0.13 tons of Hg, 411.43 thousand tons of
CH<INF>4</INF>, and 0.48 thousand tons of N<INF>2</INF>O. The estimated
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) is
$2.71 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health benefits from
reduced SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions is $1.91 billion
using a 7-percent discount rate and $4.57 billion using a 3-percent
discount rate. As such, DOE has initially determined the energy savings
from the proposed standard levels are ``significant'' within the
meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).\14\ A more detailed discussion of
the basis for these tentative conclusions is contained in the remainder
of this document and the accompanying technical support document
(``TSD'').\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ See section III.E.2 of this document for further discussion
of how DOE determines whether energy savings are ``significant''
within the context of the statute.
\15\ The TSD is available in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels as
potential standards, and is still considering them in this proposed
rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential
burdens of the more-stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh
the projected benefits.
Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in
response to this document and related information collected and
analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt
energy efficiency levels presented in this document 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 this proposed rule, as well as some of the relevant
historical background related to the establishment of standards for
RCWs.

A. Authority

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part
B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include RCWs, the
subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7)) EPCA prescribed energy
conservation standards for these products (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(2) and
(9)(A)), and directs DOE to conduct future rulemakings to determine
whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(4) and (9)(B))
EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the issuance
of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish
either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not
need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy
conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate).
(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal
energy

[[Page 13526]]

conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and 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. (See 42
U.S.C. 6297(d))
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.
6295(r)) 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 42 U.S.C.
6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine
whether the products comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for RCWs appear at 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix J (``appendix J'') and appendix J2
(``appendix J2'').
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered products, including RCWs. Any new or
amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy
(``Secretary'') determines is technologically feasible and economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
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 if DOE determines by
rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(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 statutory factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and on
the consumers of the products subject to such standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered product in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance
expenses of, the covered products which 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 considers relevant.

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
Further, EPCA 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))
EPCA 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 in 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))
Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an
energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more
subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type
or class of product that has 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.
6295(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))
Finally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (``EISA 2007''), Public Law 110-
140, any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards
promulgated after July 1, 2010, is required to 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
a single 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 for RCWs address
standby mode and off mode energy use as part of the EER metric. In this
rulemaking, DOE intends to incorporate such energy use into any amended
energy conservation standards that it may adopt.

B. Background

1. Current Standards
The current energy conservation standards for RCWs were established
in a direct final rule published on May 31, 2012. 77 FR 32308 (``May
2012 Final Rule'').\16\ These standards are consistent with a joint
proposal submitted to DOE

[[Page 13527]]

by interested parties representing manufacturers, energy and
environmental advocates, and consumer groups.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ DOE published a confirmation of effective date and
compliance date for the direct final rule on October 1, 2012. 77 FR
59719.
\17\ Available at: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019-0032">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019-0032</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The current standards are defined in terms of a minimum allowable
integrated modified energy factor (``IMEF''), measured in cubic feet
per kilowatt-hour per cycle (``ft\3\/kWh/cycle''), and maximum
allowable integrated water factor (``IWF''), measured in gallons per
cycle per cubic foot (``gal/cycle/ft\3\''), as measured according to
appendix J2. Id. The May 2012 Final Rule established four classes of
RCW: top-loading, compact (less than 1.6 ft\3\ capacity); top-loading,
standard-size (1.6 ft\3\ or greater capacity); front-loading, compact
(less than 1.6 ft\3\ capacity); and front-loading, standard-size (1.6
ft\3\ or greater capacity). 77 FR 32308, 32316-32320. The May 2012
Final Rule established a two-phase compliance date--the first phase of
amended standards applied to RCWs manufactured on or after March 7,
2015. 77 FR 32308, 32380. The second phase of amended standards, which
is currently applicable, applies to RCWs manufactured on or after
January 1, 2018. Id.
The current energy conservation standards for RCWs are set forth in
DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(g)(4) and are shown in Table II.1.

Table II.1--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Residential
Clothes Washers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum integrated
modified energy Maximum integrated
Product class factor (ft\3\/kWh/ water factor (gal/
cycle) cycle/ft\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-Loading, Compact (less 1.15 12.0
than 1.6 ft\3\ capacity)...
Top-Loading, Standard-Size 1.57 6.5
(1.6 ft\3\ or greater
capacity)..................
Front-Loading, Compact (less 1.13 8.3
than 1.6 ft\3\ capacity)...
Front-Loading, Standard-Size 1.84 4.7
(1.6 ft\3\ or greater
capacity)..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Residential Clothes Washers
On August 2, 2019, DOE published a request for information
(``RFI'') to initiate an effort to determine whether to amend the
current energy conservation standards for RCWs. 84 FR 37794 (``August
2019 RFI''). Specifically, through the August 2019 RFI, DOE sought data
and information that could enable the agency to determine whether DOE
should propose a ``no new standard'' determination because a more
stringent standard: (1) would not result in a significant savings of
energy; (2) is not technologically feasible; (3) is not economically
justified; or (4) any combination of foregoing. Id.
On September 29, 2021, DOE published a notification of the
availability of a preliminary technical support document for RCWs
(``September 2021 Preliminary Analysis''). 86 FR 53886. In that
notification, DOE sought comment on the analytical framework, models,
and tools that DOE used to evaluate potential standards for RCWs, the
results of preliminary analyses performed, and the potential energy
conservation standard levels derived from these analyses, which DOE
presented in the accompanying Preliminary TSD (``September 2021
Preliminary TSD'').\18\ Id. On October 29, 2021, DOE extended the
comment period for the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis for an
additional 45 days. 86 FR 59889.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ September 2021 Residential Clothes Washers Energy
Conservation Standards Preliminary Technical Support Document.
Available online at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BTSTD-0014-0030">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BTSTD-0014-0030</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The September 2021 Preliminary Analysis was conducted based on
energy and water use metrics as measured according to proposed
amendments to the test procedure as published in a NOPR on September 1,
2021 (``September 2021 TP NOPR''). 86 FR 49140. Part of this analysis
included developing translations between the metrics established by the
current appendix J2 test procedure (i.e., IMEF and IWF) and the new
metrics proposed to be established by the new appendix J test procedure
(i.e., EER and WER).
On April 13, 2022, DOE published a notification of data
availability (``NODA'') presenting the results of additional testing
conducted in furtherance of the development of the translations between
the current test procedure and the proposed new test procedure. 87 FR
21816 (``April 2022 NODA''). The April 2022 NODA included a larger
sample size of RCWs than the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis (44
units compared to 16 in the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, and
covering all proposed product classes). The April 2022 NODA presented
detailed energy and water use measurements for each model as well as a
summary of key characteristics pertaining to each model (e.g., product
class, capacity, cabinet width, etc.). On May 19, 2022, DOE reopened
the comment period for the April 2022 NODA and provided additional
information in response to stakeholder questions. 87 FR 30433.
DOE received comments in response to the September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis and April 2022 NODA from the interested parties listed in
Table II.2.

[[Page 13528]]

Table II.2--Written Comments Received in Response to the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis and April 2022 NODA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment No. in the docket
------------------------------------
In response to
Commenter(s) Abbreviation September 2021 In response to Commenter type
Preliminary April 2022 NODA
Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Illinois, Commonwealth Ameren et al............. 42 * n/a Efficiency
Edison Company, Northwest Organization &
Energy Efficiency Alliance, Utilities.
and Northwest Power and
Conservation Council Staff.
Appliance Standards Awareness ASAP et al............... 37 51 Efficiency
Project, American Council for Organizations.
an Energy-Efficient Economy,
Consumer Federation of
America, Natural Resources
Defense Council.
Art Fraas..................... Fraas.................... 35 n/a Individual.
Association of Home Appliance AHAM..................... 40 53 Trade
Manufacturers. Association.
Commonwealth Edison Company ComEd and NEEA........... n/a 50 Utility &
and Northwest Energy Efficiency
Efficiency Alliance. Organization.
GE Appliances................. GEA...................... 38 n/a Manufacturer.
Members of the committee of NAS Members.............. 34 n/a National
the National Academies of Advisors.
Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine.
New York State Energy Research NYSERDA.................. 36 n/a Public Benefit
and Development Authority. Corporation.
Pacific Gas and Electric CA IOUs.................. 43 52 Utilities.
Company, San Diego Gas and
Electric, and Southern
California Edison;
collectively, the California
Investor-Owned Utilities.
Samsung....................... Samsung.................. 41 n/a Manufacturer.
Whirlpool Corporation......... Whirlpool................ 39 n/a Manufacturer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ``n/a'' signifies that the commenter or group of commenters did not provide a comment in response to the
particular notification.

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\19\
To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments
that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided
during the November 10, 2021, public meeting, DOE cites the written
comments throughout this document. Any oral comments provided during
the webinar that are not substantively addressed by written comments
are summarized and cited separately throughout this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
energy conservation standards for RCWs. (Docket NO. EERE-2017-BT-
STD-0014, which is maintained at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>). The
references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket
ID number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

GEA commented in support of AHAM's comments and incorporated AHAM's
comments into its own by reference. (GEA, No. 38 at p. 2)
Whirlpool commented that it supports and echo AHAM's positions.
(Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 2) Whirlpool added that its comments expand
upon AHAM's comments and provide additional detail or data to reinforce
its positions, as well as to comment on areas where AHAM cannot
comment. (Id.)
NYSERDA commented that it supports the detailed comments provided
by ASAP et al., most notably investigating the correlation between
clothes washer capacity and measured efficiency. (NYSERDA, No. 36 at p.
2)
AHAM specified that its comments in response to the April 2022 NODA
do not supplant its previous comments submitted in response to the
September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, but instead supplement those
comments. (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 2)

C. Deviation From Appendix A

In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C,
appendix A (``appendix A''), DOE notes that it is deviating from the
provision in appendix A regarding the pre-NOPR stages for an energy
conservation standards rulemaking. Section 6(a)(2) of appendix A states
that if the Department determines it is appropriate to proceed with a
rulemaking, the preliminary stages of a rulemaking to issue or amend an
energy conservation standard that DOE will undertake will be a
framework document and preliminary analysis, or an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking. While DOE published a preliminary analysis for
this rulemaking, DOE did not publish a framework document in
conjunction with the preliminary analysis. DOE notes, however, chapter
2 of the September 2021 Preliminary TSD that accompanied the September
2021 Preliminary Analysis--entitled Analytical Framework, Comments from
Interested Parties, and DOE Responses--describes the general analytical
framework that DOE uses in evaluating and developing potential amended
energy conservation standards. Additionally, prior to the notification
of the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE published an RFI in
which DOE identified and sought comment on the analyses conducted in
support of the most recent energy conservation standards rulemakings
for RCWs. 84 FR 37794. As such, publication of a separate framework
document would be largely redundant of previously published documents.
Section 6(f)(2) of appendix A specifies that the length of the
public comment period for a NOPR will vary depending upon the
circumstances of the particular rulemaking, but will not be less than
75 calendar days. For this NOPR, DOE has opted to instead provide a 60-
day comment period. DOE requested comment in the August 2019 RFI on the
technical and economic analyses and provided stakeholders a 60-day
comment period, after publishing the comment period extension. 84 FR
37794, 84 FR 44557. Additionally, DOE initially provided a 75-day
comment period for the September 2021

[[Page 13529]]

Preliminary Analysis with an extension to 120 days. 86 FR 53886, 86 FR
59889. DOE also provided a 30-day comment period for the April 2022
NODA and re-opened the comment period for an additional 9 days. 87 FR
21816, 87 FR 30433. The analytical methods used for this NOPR are
similar to those used in previous rulemaking notices. As such, DOE
believes a 60-day comment period is necessary and appropriate and will
provide interested parties with a meaningful opportunity to comment on
the proposed rule.

III. General Discussion

DOE developed this proposal after considering oral and written
comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent
a variety of interests. The following discussion addresses issues
raised by these commenters.

A. General Comments

This section summarizes general comments received from interested
parties regarding rulemaking timing and process.
AHAM commented that publishing the September 2021 TP NOPR and the
September 2021 Preliminary Analysis concurrently did not allow
sufficient time for stakeholders to provide meaningful comments on
either publication. (AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 2-4) AHAM commented that
although DOE missed the statutory deadlines for both the test procedure
and standards rulemakings, it is disingenuous to claim that the only
option is to move forward concurrently on these rulemakings. (Id.) AHAM
suggested that DOE should have published the test procedure earlier,
considered implementing fewer changes to the test procedure, or made
changes that do not require testing to evaluate or reestablish the
baseline energy conservation standards. (Id.) AHAM expressed concern
that DOE moving forward concurrently with these rulemakings will likely
lead to DOE needing to conduct additional analysis based on the
finalized test procedure before proposing a new energy conservation
standard, and that DOE is missing the opportunity to receive meaningful
feedback on the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis. (Id.) AHAM added
that despite DOE's desire to move quickly to rectify missed statutory
deadlines, DOE must ensure it meets other statutory criteria, including
that a standard must be technically and economically justified. (Id.)
AHAM noted that the comment periods for the September 2021
Preliminary Analysis and the September 2021 TP NOPR overlapped by 34
days. AHAM noted that it requested a 92-day comment period extension
for the September 2021 TP NOPR to provide adequate time to evaluate the
proposed changes to the test procedure through testing. (AHAM, No. 53
at p. 2) AHAM added that while it appreciated DOE considering that
request and extending the comment period by 28 days, that extension was
insufficient to complete the robust testing plan developed by AHAM and
its members, gather the test data, and analyze the results. (AHAM, No.
40 at pp. 2-4; AHAM, No. 53 at p. 2)
AHAM stated that because of the insufficient time, it was unable to
provide detailed comment on the accuracy, repeatability, and testing
burden associated with the proposed test procedure and on its potential
impact on measured efficiency, or fully comment on the proposed test
procedures implications related to the September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis. (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 2) AHAM further stated that it was
planning its own testing in order to fully understand and evaluate
DOE's proposed changes. (AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 2-4)
AHAM commented that it was poor process for DOE to issue a test
procedure final rule before receiving comments on the April 2022 NODA,
and to do so during a brief comment period extension. (Id.) AHAM added
that DOE finalizing the test procedure during the brief NODA comment
period extension made it nearly impossible for AHAM to review and
analyze the final test procedure in addition to the new data and
responses to AHAM's questions in order to formulate complete comments
on the NODA. (Id.)
AHAM further commented that although DOE did not hold a public
meeting for the April 2022 NODA, it appreciated that DOE answered its
questions and provided more time for comments in order to allow
commenters to review the updates. (AHAM, No. 53 at pp. 2-3) AHAM
stated, however, that the timing of when DOE provided links to the
updated data and responses to questions left very little time for
review and analysis of the additional data and information. (Id.)
AHAM noted that although the April 2022 NODA is technically part of
the energy conservation standards docket, comments on DOE's test data
could relate to both the energy conservation standards and test
procedure rulemakings. (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 3) AHAM stated that its
comments in response to the April 2022 NODA therefore address both the
test procedure and the energy conservation standards. (Id.) AHAM
commented that it was poor process for DOE to issue a test procedure
final rule before receiving comments on the April 2022 NODA, and to do
so during a brief comment period extension. (Id.) AHAM further
explained that even though DOE answered or deferred most of AHAM's
requests in the test procedure final rule and in the April 2022 NODA,
AHAM's comments on the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis indicated
that additional information was needed in order to provide full
feedback to DOE on the test procedure. (Id.) AHAM added that DOE
finalizing the test procedure during the brief NODA comment period
extension made it nearly impossible for AHAM to review and analyze the
final test procedure in addition to the new data and responses to
AHAM's questions in order to formulate complete comments on the NODA.
(Id.)
AHAM requested that DOE allow for 180 days between the publication
of the test procedure final rule and the end of the comment period for
the energy conservation standards NOPR. (AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 4-6; AHAM,
No. 53 at p. 12)
Samsung also commented that, given the scope of changes proposed in
appendix J, more data would be needed to establish the baseline and
efficiency levels, which could further delay the finalization of the
next energy conservation standards. (Samsung, No. 41 at p. 3) Samsung
commented that it therefore believes more time and test data are needed
to fully adopt appendix J. (Id.)
NYSERDA encouraged DOE to quickly proceed in this rulemaking to
unlock additional significant savings for New Yorkers. (NYSERDA, No. 36
at p. 3)
In response to AHAM's comments regarding the timing of the
September 2021 TP NOPR and the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE
notes that the timing of the test procedure and energy conservation
standards rulemakings have been conducted in accordance with DOE's
procedures at appendix A to subpart C of part 430, Procedures,
Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised
Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Consumer Products
and Certain Commercial/Industrial Equipment (``appendix A'' or
``Process Rule''). The Process Rule inherently recognizes a certain
amount of overlap between test procedure and energy conservation
standards rulemakings. In particular, the Process Rule specifies that
new test procedures and amended test procedures that impact measured
energy use or efficiency will be finalized at least 180 days prior to
the close of the

[[Page 13530]]

comment period for a NOPR proposing new or amended energy conservation
standards or a notice of proposed determination that standards do not
need to be amended. Section 8(d)(1) of appendix A. Inherent to this
requirement is a recognition that the earlier stages of the test
procedure rulemaking (i.e., the test procedure NOPR stage) would be
conducted concurrently with the pre-NOPR stages of the energy
conservation standards rulemaking (i.e., the preliminary analysis
stage). In other words, the implication of the timing established by
the Process Rule is that a test procedure NOPR may provide the basis
for a standards preliminary analysis; while a test procedure final rule
provides the basis for a standards NOPR. DOE published a test procedure
final rule on June 1, 2022 (``June 2022 TP Final Rule''). 87 FR 33316.
This standards NOPR is publishing more than 180 days after the
publication of the June 2022 TP Final Rule, in accordance with the
requirements of the Process Rule.
As acknowledged by AHAM, DOE is conducting this rulemaking in
fulfillment of its statutory obligations under EPCA. DOE recognizes and
appreciates the information and data provided by multiple interested
parties in response to the September 2021 TP NOPR, September 2021
Preliminary Analysis, and April 2022 NODA. As discussed throughout this
NOPR, DOE has incorporated data and other information received during
these prior rulemaking stages into the analyses conducted for this
NOPR.
In response to the September 2021 Preliminary TSD, AHAM commented
that DOE did not provide sufficient data to support the September 2021
Preliminary TSD, and that DOE's analysis was not transparent. (AHAM,
No. 40 at pp. 4-6) AHAM asserted that by providing summary data and
conclusions without providing further detail, DOE failed to meet the
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act or the Data Quality
Act. (Id.) AHAM further commented that the summary information that DOE
provided as part of the September 2021 Preliminary TSD was somewhat
helpful but did not allow stakeholders to fully assess the data and did
not clearly demonstrate that DOE's proposed translation between
appendix J2 and proposed appendix J was accurate. (Id.) AHAM requested
that DOE provide its full test data by model for all models tested to
appendix J2 and new appendix J, via a NODA or other appropriate
regulatory tool. (Id.) AHAM also requested that DOE share the model
numbers of the clothes washers it tested since it would help
stakeholders, such as AHAM and its members, determine the
representativeness of the sample. (Id.) Specifically, AHAM requested
that all data released contain all variables including, but not limited
to: total weighted per-cycle hot water energy consumption
(``HE<INF>T</INF>''), total weighted per-cycle machine electrical
energy consumption (``ME<INF>T</INF>''), total per-cycle energy
consumption for removal of moisture (``DE<INF>T</INF>''), combined per-
cycle low power mode energy consumption (``E<INF>TLP</INF>''), and
total weighted per-cycle water consumption (``Q<INF>T</INF>''). (Id.)
AHAM asked that if DOE cannot provide the information AHAM requested,
DOE should issue an explanation as to why it cannot produce the data.
(Id.) AHAM added that it will consider sharing its data confidentially
with DOE once its analysis is complete so that DOE can include its
analysis on the docket. (Id.)
AHAM stated that DOE should not issue an energy conservation
standards NOPR until it publishes a NODA that provides updated data
from DOE and AHAM members' testing. (AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 4-6)
In response to the April 2022 NODA, AHAM commented that it had
tested 26 RCW models that represent a cross-section of the market in
terms of capacity and features. (AHAM, No. 53 at pp. 6-7) AHAM tested
each model one to three times and averaged the results. (Id.) AHAM
presented data comparing IMEF versus EER and IWF versus WER for the 26
units tested by AHAM and the 44 units tested by DOE in the April 2022
NODA, by product class. (Id.) AHAM concluded that DOE's data presented
in the April 2022 NODA appears to be similar to AHAM's data in terms of
test results, distribution of models, and variability. (Id.) AHAM
commented that while it appreciates DOE including equations and other
transparent information in the April 2022 NODA, DOE still has not
provided model numbers for the units it tested. (Id.) AHAM therefore
noted that it is impossible for AHAM to know whether DOE and AHAM
tested some of the same models. (Id.)
The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to disclose clothes washer cycle time,
length of spin time for extracting rinse water, and the maximum spin
speed for the 62 clothes washers tested by DOE so that interested
parties could better ascertain the trade-offs related to cycle time and
gain a better understanding of the differences between the remaining
moisture content (``RMC'') \20\ as calculated using appendix J2 versus
appendix J. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at p. 4) The CA IOUs commented that in the
September 2021 Preliminary TSD, higher spin speeds and longer spin
times were both used as design options for efficiency level (``EL'') 3
and EL 4, depending on the product class and that based on the publicly
available information, they were unable to assess the potential impacts
to the overall cycle time or to understand the potential trade-offs for
higher spin speeds in lieu of longer cycle times. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ The RMC represents the amount of moisture remaining in the
test load at the end of the washer cycle. RMC is used to calculate
the drying energy component of IMEF and EER. On most clothes
washers, the drying energy component represents the largest portion
of energy captured in the IMEF and EER metrics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed in section II.B.2 of this document, the April 2022
NODA presented additional test data and detailed information
characterizing each tested model. This data included the key energy and
water use parameters requested by AHAM (i.e., HE<INF>T</INF>,
ME<INF>T</INF>, DE<INF>T</INF>, E<INF>TLP</INF>, and Q<INF>T</INF>) for
each of the models tested. DOE also provided a number of key
characteristics pertaining to each model (e.g., product class,
capacity, cabinet width, etc.) that illustrate the types of units on
the market that were represented by DOE's test program. DOE appreciates
the additional test data subsequently provided by AHAM. As discussed in
section IV.C.5 of this document, DOE used AHAM's data in combination
with DOE's data to evaluate the appendix J2 to appendix J efficiency
metric translation methods under consideration.
Regarding the CA IOUs' comment requesting disclosure of the cycle
time measured for each unit in DOE's test sample, although the April
2022 NODA did not indicate the measured cycle time of each unit in
DOE's test sample, DOE has characterized the average cycle time
associated with each defined efficiency level for each product, as
described in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
NAS Members commented generally on DOE's analytical approach to
setting efficiency standards and offered findings and recommendations
for improving DOE's methodology, and ultimately, the net social
benefits of the efficiency standards DOE establishes under EPCA. (NAS
Members, No. 34 at pp. 1-7)
AHAM commented that National Academy of Sciences (``NAS'') recently
released a peer review of methods used by DOE in setting appliance and
equipment standards. (AHAM, No. 40 at p. 9) AHAM recommended that DOE
determine how it will address the NAS

[[Page 13531]]

report before engaging in further rulemakings or new amended standards.
(Id.) AHAM acknowledged that although this may not be feasible given
the number of missed deadlines and the need to move forward to mitigate
further missed deadlines, AHAM and its members are reviewing the NAS
report and may have additional comments on how DOE should revise its
methodology for future rulemakings both generally, and with regard to
RCWs. (Id.)
In response to AHAM, DOE is addressing the contents of the NAS
report \21\ in a separate rulemaking, in parallel with other ongoing
rulemakings including this RCW rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ The Consensus Study Report, ``Review of Methods Used by the
U.S. Department of Energy in Setting Appliance and Equipment
Standards,'' January 7, 2022. Available at <a href="http://www.nap.edu/catalog/25992/review-of-methods-used-by-the-us-department-of-energy-in-setting-appliance-and-equipment-standards">www.nap.edu/catalog/25992/review-of-methods-used-by-the-us-department-of-energy-in-setting-appliance-and-equipment-standards</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Scope of Coverage

This NOPR covers those consumer products that meet the definition
of ``clothes washer.'' 10 CFR 430.2.
EPCA does not define the term ``clothes washer.'' DOE has defined a
``clothes washer'' as a consumer product designed to clean clothes,
utilizing a water solution of soap and/or detergent and mechanical
agitation or other movement, that must be one of the following classes:
automatic clothes washers, semi-automatic clothes washers, and other
clothes washers. Id.
An ``automatic clothes washer'' is a class of clothes washer that
has a control system that is capable of scheduling a preselected
combination of operations, such as regulation of water temperature,
regulation of the water fill level, and performance of wash, rinse,
drain, and spin functions without the need for user intervention
subsequent to the initiation of machine operation. Some models may
require user intervention to initiate these different segments of the
cycle after the machine has begun operation, but they do not require
the user to intervene to regulate the water temperature by adjusting
the external water faucet valves. Id.
A ``semi-automatic clothes washer'' is a class of clothes washer
that is the same as an automatic clothes washer except that user
intervention is required to regulate the water temperature by adjusting
the external water faucet valves. Id. ``Other clothes washer'' means a
class of clothes washer that is not an automatic or semi-automatic
clothes washer. Id.
See section IV.A.1 of this document for discussion of the product
classes analyzed in this NOPR.
Other definitions relevant to RCWs have been established by the
Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') for purposes of the ENERGY
STAR program. For example, Version 8.1 of the Program Requirements
Product Specification for Clothes Washers (``ENERGY STAR Version 8.1
Specification'') \22\ defines a ``combination all-in-one washer-dryer''
as a consumer product that meets the definition of an RCW and an
electric clothes dryer or gas clothes dryer, which cleans and dries
clothes in a single tumble-type drum; a drying cycle can be performed
independently without first performing a wash cycle. During the drying
cycle, combination all-in-one washer-dryers use one of two methods to
dry the clothing load: either using circulated air (without the use of
water) to cool and condense moisture from the dryer process air (i.e.,
``combination all-in-one washer-dryers with air-only drying''), or
consuming water to cool and condense moisture from the dryer process
air (i.e., ``combination all-in-one washer-dryers with water-cooled
drying''). In the ENERGY STAR Version 8.1 Specification, combination
all-in-one washer-dryers with air-only drying are eligible for ENERGY
STAR certification, whereas combination all-in-one washer-dryers with
water-cooled drying are ineligible for ENERGY STAR certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ ENERGY STAR Version 8.1 Program Requirements Product
Specification for Clothes Washers. Available online at
<a href="http://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/ENERGY%20STAR%20Version%208.1%20Clothes%20Washer%20Final%20Specificaiton%20-%20Partner%20Commitments%20and%20Eligibility%20Criteria.pdf">www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/ENERGY%20STAR%20Version%208.1%20Clothes%20Washer%20Final%20Specificaiton%20-%20Partner%20Commitments%20and%20Eligibility%20Criteria.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to investigate water-cooled combination
all-in-one washer-dryers and to take steps to address water usage
concerns raised by the ENERGY STAR Version 8.1 Specification published
in April 2021. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at pp. 6-7) The CA IOUs noted that
combination all-in-one washer-dryers with water-cooled drying are not
currently subject to any water use standards or water-usage testing
requirements despite the recent changes finalized by the clothes dryer
test procedure final rule published on October 8, 2021. (See 86 FR
56608; Id.) The CA IOUs expressed concern that there is unmeasured and
unregulated water use in products that seemingly include a water
standard for the washing mode of the same product. (Id.) The CA IOUs
encouraged DOE to find ways to disclose this information, including
requiring public disclosure of any product configurations that use
water during the drying cycle as part of the certification requirements
and relevant product labeling; making changes to the consumer clothes
dryer test procedure to measure water use for combination clothes
washer products; and developing a separate test procedure and standard
for combination all-in-one washer-dryers and laundry centers that
include both the washing and drying functions. (Id.)
Evaluating or developing test procedures is outside the scope of
this energy conservation standards rulemaking. DOE is not proposing any
certification or labeling requirements in this NOPR. Instead, DOE may
consider proposals to establish certification requirements and
reporting for RCWs under a separate rulemaking regarding appliance and
equipment certification.

C. Test Procedure

EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293)
Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to
certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation
standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product. DOE's
current energy conservation standards for RCWs are expressed in terms
of IMEF and IWF as measured using appendix J2. (See 10 CFR
430.32(g)(4).)
1. History of Appendix J
As discussed, the September 2021 TP NOPR proposed a new test
procedure at appendix J, which proposed to define new energy efficiency
metrics: an energy efficiency ratio (i.e., EER) and a water efficiency
ratio (i.e., WER). 86 FR 49140, 49172. EER is defined as the weighted-
average load size in pounds (``lbs'') divided by the sum of (1) the
per-cycle machine energy, (2) the per-cycle water heating energy, (3)
the per-cycle drying energy, and (4) the per-cycle standby and off mode
energy consumption, in kilowatt-hours (``kWh''). Id. WER is defined as
the weighted-average load size in lbs divided by the total weighted
per-cycle water consumption for all wash cycles in gallons. Id. For
both EER and WER, a higher value indicates more efficient performance.
Id. The September 2021 Preliminary Analysis was performed using the
appendix J test procedure as it was proposed in the September 2021 TP
NOPR.
As discussed, DOE finalized the new appendix J test procedure in
the June 2022 TP Final Rule. 87 FR 33316. DOE used appendix J as
finalized in the June

[[Page 13532]]

2022 TP Final Rule as the basis for the analysis in this NOPR.
AHAM commented that DOE did not finalize appendix J as proposed in
the September 2021 TP NOPR and that the test procedure changes
described in the June 2022 TP Final Rule could impact measured energy
and water efficiency. (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 12) AHAM asserted that it may
be premature to use the April 2022 NODA data or AHAM's additional data
to inform the translation from appendix J2 metric to appendix J metrics
because appendix J is not identical to the test procedure proposed in
the September 2021 TP NOPR. (Id. at p. 3)
AHAM commented that it is still reviewing finalized appendix J and
noted that even if DOE's and AHAM's samples together represent a
significant portion of shipments, it may be necessary to reconsider the
September 2021 Preliminary Analysis based on finalized appendix J.
(Id.)
The appendix J test procedure finalized by the June 2022 TP Final
Rule included only one change that affects measured energy consumption.
Specifically, the June 2022 TP Final Rule updated the assumed final
moisture content (``FMC'') assumption in the drying energy formula from
4 percent as proposed in the September 2021 NOPR to 2 percent in
finalized appendix J. Id. at 87 FR 33354. DOE specifically discussed in
the September 2021 NOPR that it would consider updating the FMC from 4
percent to 2 percent. 86 FR 49140, 49176. The updated FMC value affects
only the drying energy calculation and can be implemented formulaically
on any test data that was acquired using the version of appendix J as
proposed in the September 2021 TP NOPR. In the April 2022 NODA, DOE
published two sets of translation equations corresponding to an FMC of
4 percent and 2 percent, respectively, providing interested parties
with the opportunity to evaluate the data under both approaches. 87 FR
21816, 21817.
2. Metrics
As discussed, under appendix J2, energy efficiency is measured
using the IMEF metric, measured in ft\3\/kWh/cycle, and water
efficiency is measured using the IWF metric, measured in gal/cycle/
ft\3\. Under appendix J, energy efficiency is measured using the EER
metric, measured in lb/kWh/cycle, and water efficiency is measured
using the WER metric, measured in lb/gal/cycle.
Samsung commented in support of the efficiency metric changes
shifting from capacity-based to load size-based, stating that it would
be better understood by consumers. (Samsung, No. 41 at p. 3) Samsung
recommended, however, that this be the only change that DOE implements
to calculate the new energy and water efficiency metrics EER and WER.
(Id.) Samsung added that shifting the metrics to EER and WER in this
way will only result in a change in the numeric quantity of measured
efficiency, given that the capacity and weighted-average load size
relationship is linear. (Id.) Samsung commented that changing only the
metric calculation would ease burden for manufacturers while making it
easier for consumers to understand their clothes washer's efficiency.
(Id.)
EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended by DOE
shall be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure
energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a
covered product or equipment during a representative average use cycle
or period of use, and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) As presented in the June 2022 TP Final Rule, in
general the changes in appendix J in comparison to appendix J2 improve
the representativeness of test results and reduce test burden, among
other benefits. 87 FR 33316, 33320-33321. In this NOPR, DOE is
proposing standards based on the new metrics defined in appendix J as
finalized. To aid interested parties in understanding the translation
between the current metrics and the new metrics, the engineering
analysis is presented using both the current metrics (i.e., IMEF and
IWF) and the new metrics (i.e., EER and WER), as discussed in section
IV.C of this document.
ASAP et al., commented in support of DOE's change to make the
efficiency metrics based on load size instead of capacity, which they
asserted will help mitigate the current bias toward large-capacity
clothes washers. (ASAP et al., No. 37 at p. 2) ASAP et al., expressed
concern, however, that for top-loading standard-size clothes washers,
large-capacity clothes washers still achieve higher efficiency ratings.
(Id.) ASAP et al., stated that while the correlation between large
capacity and high efficiency is less pronounced for EER than for IMEF,
it persists based on the data presented in the September 2021
Preliminary TSD. (Id.) ASAP et al., therefore encouraged DOE to
investigate whether this correlation results from larger clothes
washers being inherently more efficient, larger clothes washers
employing additional technology options that improve efficiency, or
some remaining inherent bias toward larger capacity clothes washers.
(Id.)
The CA IOUs commented that while they agree that the appendix J
test procedure offers improvements to the test procedure to reduce some
inherent biases between efficiency metrics and capacity, tub capacity
can still contribute to improved efficiency because a larger amount of
clothing can be washed using an incremental increase in the quantity of
water, and a larger drum diameter can exert a higher g-force on
clothing, thereby removing more water during the final spin and
reducing the drying energy. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at pp. 2-3)
Whirlpool commented that based on its initial testing, it does not
agree with DOE's conclusion that there is no benefit to larger
capacities using the EER metric. Whirlpool commented that since
capacity is still factored into the load sizes used for testing, and
those load sizes remain a part of the EER calculation, capacity will
still affect efficiency ratings. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 19)
In the June 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE noted that under the current
metrics in appendix J2, energy use (i.e., the denominator of the IMEF
equation) scales with weighted-average load size, whereas capacity
(i.e., the numerator of the IMEF equation) scales with maximum load
size. 87 FR 33316, 33349. This provides an inherent numerical advantage
to large-capacity clothes washers that is disproportionate to the
efficiency advantage that can be achieved through ``economies of
scale'' associated with washing larger loads. Id. This advantage means
that a larger-capacity clothes washer consumes more energy to wash a
pound of clothes than a smaller-capacity clothes washer with the same
IMEF rating. Id. This relationship applies similarly to water
efficiency through the IWF equation. Id. This disproportionate benefit
increases as average clothes washer capacity increases over time. Id.
To avoid providing bias for large-capacity clothes washers, DOE changed
the energy and water efficiency metrics in new appendix J by replacing
the capacity term with the weighted-average load size. Id. Under
appendix J, energy and water use scale proportionally with weighted-
average load size, thus eliminating the efficiency ``bias'' currently
provided to large-capacity clothes washers. Id.
To the extent that larger clothes washers continue to achieve
higher ratings than smaller clothes washers under the new metrics, such
higher performance reflects inherent design option advantages
applicable to larger-

[[Page 13533]]

capacity clothes washers. For example, as noted by the CA IOUs, large-
capacity clothes washers typically have wider drum diameters, which can
exert higher g-forces on the load during the spin cycle for a given
spin speed, effectively yielding a lower RMC measurement (i.e., reduced
drying energy) compared to an otherwise identical smaller clothes
washer with a narrower drum diameter. Having removed the numerical
``bias'' inherent within the current IMEF and IWF metrics, any
remaining performance advantage provided to larger-capacity clothes
washers under the new metrics is an accurate and representative
reflection of differences in efficiency between smaller- and larger-
capacity clothes washers on a per-pound of clothing basis.
AHAM commented that it appreciates that the appendix J test
procedure results in a reduction of test burden and that DOE could even
further reduce test burden by eliminating the requirement to measure
and calculate standby energy. (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 13) AHAM further
commented that in most cases, the standby energy is so low that it is
not offset by a benefit to the environment or consumers under EPCA.
(Id.) AHAM added that because standby energy use is so low, it is
unlikely that manufacturers will reduce it further in order to meet
future energy conservation standards; and because manufactures are not
likely to increase standby energy use since they have already invested
in reducing it, standby energy use will not be a differentiator between
products. (Id.) AHAM therefore recommended eliminating the standby
measurement requirement because it will not have a material effect on
overall energy savings or individual energy testing results. (Id.)
As discussed, EPCA requires that any test procedure for RCWs
prescribed in a final rule after June 30, 2009 must include standby
mode and off mode energy consumption, taking into consideration the
most current versions of Standards 62301 and 62087 of the International
Electrotechnical Commission, with such energy consumption integrated
into the overall energy efficiency, energy consumption, or other energy
descriptor for each covered product, unless the Secretary determines
that either the current test procedures already fully account for and
incorporate the standby mode and off mode energy consumption of the
covered product; or such an integrated test procedure is technically
infeasible for a particular covered product, in which case EPCA
requires the Secretary to prescribe a separate standby mode and off
mode energy use test procedure for the covered product, if technically
feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)-(B))
3. Test Cloth
Both appendix J2 and appendix J require the use of specialized test
cloth that conforms to the specifications outlined in 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix J3 (``appendix J3''). As discussed in the June 2022
TP Final Rule, the specifications for the energy test cloth were
developed to be representative of the range of fabrics comprising
consumer wash loads: a 50-percent cotton/50-percent polyester blended
material was specified to approximate the typical mix of cotton,
cotton/polyester blend, and synthetic articles that are machine-washed
by consumers. 87 FR 33316, 33366. In developing the test cloth
specifications, DOE also considered:
<bullet> Manufacturability: A 50/50 cotton-polyester momie weave
was specified because at the time, such cloth was produced in high
volume, had been produced to a consistent specification for many years,
and was expected to be produced on this basis for the foreseeable
future. 66 FR 3314, 3331.
<bullet> Consistency in test cloth production: The cloth material
properties were specified in detail, including fiber content, thread
count, and fabric weight; as well as requirements to verify that water
repellent finishes are not applied to the cloth. Id.
<bullet> Consistency of the RMC measurement among different lots: A
procedure was developed to generate correction factors for each new
``lot'' (i.e., batch) of test cloth to normalize test results and
ensure consistent RMC measurements regardless of which lot is used for
testing. Id.
Test cloth is manufactured in batches called ``lots,'' which are
quantities of test cloth that have been manufactured with the same
batches of cotton and polyester during one continuous process. Due to
differences between batches of cotton and polyester used to manufacture
the test cloth, each lot has slightly different absorption properties.
To account for these differences in absorption during the RMC
measurement, appendix J3 specifies a procedure to determine correction
factors for each lot that correlate the measured RMC values of the new
test cloth lot with a set of standard RMC values established as the
historical reference point. These correction factors are applied to the
RMC test results in appendix J and appendix J2 to ensure the
repeatability and reproducibility of test results performed using
different lots of test cloth. In particular, the measured RMC of each
clothes washer is used to calculate the drying energy, which has a
significant impact on the final IMEF or EER value. Application of these
correction factors significantly reduces lot-to-lot variation in RMC,
from over 10 percentage points uncorrected to around 3 percentage
points corrected. 87 FR 33316, 33369.
AHAM commented that it recently notified DOE of an issue concerning
Lot 24 of the test cloth used in clothes washer testing, stating that
AHAM's initial investigations have revealed serious issues with
variation in Lot 24 that are impacting certification, verification, and
regulatory testing efforts. (AHAM, No. 53 at pp. 4-5) AHAM specified
that the correction factor for Lot 24 is not accurate across the entire
lot. (Id.) AHAM further explained that this has resulted in an
increased difficulty in meeting the applicable standard because the
inaccurate correction factor is negatively impacting efficiency. (Id.)
AHAM also specified that it is more difficult to certify products
correctly or with certainty because the variation in results and
enforcement are major concerns. (Id.) AHAM also expressed concern that
testing related to appendix J may be questionable given the Lot 24
correction factor variation since both DOE and AHAM used Lot 24 for
over half the units in their test samples. (Id.) AHAM therefore
concluded that the results of DOE's and AHAM's testing should not be
used to reestablish a baseline, as they likely do not accurately
represent measured energy or water efficiency. (Id.) AHAM further
commented that it convened its test cloth task force to address the
correction factor variation issue with the goal of providing
recommendations for DOE, and has sought guidance and an enforcement
policy from DOE to address the Lot 24 issues in the short-term. (Id.)
AHAM noted that since the test cloth Lot 24 variation will likely
impact the accuracy of DOE and AHAM's testing, AHAM will conduct
further review of its data and may need to submit revised data and/or
comments once the impact of this variation on the test data is better
understood. (Id.) AHAM recommended that DOE work to understand the
impact of this variation on the accuracy of its test data and standards
analysis. (Id.) For example, AHAM noted that if it has been more
difficult to meet current standards due to the uncertainty in Lot 24's
correction factor, DOE will need to understand whether current products
have been tuned to be more efficient just because of the test cloth.
(Id.) AHAM added that this could impact DOE's

[[Page 13534]]

analysis of more stringent standards, as some technology options may
already be in use due to the correction factor issue. (Id.) AHAM also
recommended that DOE conduct its own analysis of AHAM's data, as well
as the combined AHAM and DOE dataset, which should include an
evaluation of the Lot 24 variation. (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 12)
AHAM also commented that for some time, several manufacturers and,
likely other testing laboratories, have experienced delays in obtaining
test cloth. (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 5) AHAM further explained that delays
in obtaining test cloth mean that some companies need to ration testing
and may not be able to do testing other than certification and/or audit
testing until test cloth is received. (Id.) AHAM added that it will
therefore take more time for AHAM and its members to provide test
results to support DOE's rulemaking efforts related to clothes washers
and clothes dryers. (Id.) AHAM requested that DOE ensure it does not
move so quickly that its analysis (and manufacturers' comments) are
unable to account for these test cloth challenges. (Id.)
DOE is acutely aware of the issues regarding variation in Lot 24
and is participating in the AHAM test cloth task force to help
determine the root causes of the observed variation and to develop
solutions to mitigate these concerns for Lot 24 as well as for future
test cloth lots. Subsequent to the submission of AHAM's comment, the
AHAM test cloth task force determined to divide Lot 24 into four
distinct ``sub-lots,'' each with its own correction factors developed
using the process specified by appendix J3. DOE has added these sub-lot
correction factors to the RCW test report template published on the DOE
website.\23\ Establishing these separate sub-lots, each with separate
correction factors, has mitigated much of the concern regarding
variability throughout Lot 24. DOE is aware that the task force
continues to investigate the extent to which any variability that
remains within each sub-lot can be further mitigated, and DOE continues
to participate in those efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ DOE's test report templates are available at <a href="http://energy.gov/eere/buildings/standardized-templates-reporting-test-results">energy.gov/eere/buildings/standardized-templates-reporting-test-results</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

With regard to delays in obtaining test cloth, DOE is aware that
the causes of delay have largely been addressed and that the test cloth
supplier is currently working to fulfill the backlog of test cloth
orders.
4. Other Test Procedure-Related Comments
In response to the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis and the
April 2022 NODA, a number of stakeholders made comments pertaining to
the clothes washer test procedure, many of which DOE subsequently
addressed in the June 2022 TP Final Rule. Comments regarding certain
test procedure issues that were not discussed in the June 2022 TP Final
Rule are summarized in the paragraphs that follow. Addressing test
procedure concerns is outside the scope of this energy conservation
standards rulemaking; however, DOE encourages stakeholders to resubmit
these comments during the next clothes washer test procedure
rulemaking.
AHAM commented in opposition to DOE's decision to change the FMC
assumption from 4 percent in appendix J2 to 2 percent in appendix J.
(AHAM, No. 53 at p. 12) AHAM stated that the change in FMC assumption
from 4 to 2 percent will overstate the impact of drying energy and will
likely drive many clothes washer designs to increase spin speeds and
spin times beyond an acceptable level. (Id.) AHAM expressed concern
that this could change a clothes washer's core functionality into a
water extractor, and in effect, remove the consumer functionality of
washing the clothes. (Id.) AHAM commented that the test procedure
should not drive design changes of this magnitude, and added that this
change will limit the opportunity in the energy conservation standards
rulemaking for technologically feasible and cost efficient improvements
because there are limits on how much spin speeds can increase before
the chassis needs to be redesigned or before safety and consumer
utility are impacted. (Id.)
AHAM commented that if DOE moves forward with changing FMC from 4
to 2 percent, it must address the impact of the apparent mismatch
between clothes washer drying energy and total per-cycle electric dryer
energy consumption defined in the clothes dryer test procedures at 10
CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D2 (``appendix D2'') or 10 CFR part
430, subpart B, appendix D1 (``appendix D1''). (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 13)
AHAM further explained that currently, the drying impact of a clothes
washer is significantly over-credited as a result of the mismatch in
clothes loads between the clothes washer and clothes dryer test
procedures. (Id.) For example, AHAM noted that the average weight of
the load in appendix J can be nearly 50 percent greater than the weight
of a load in the clothes dryer test procedure. (Id.) AHAM stated that
according to the clothes washer test procedure, the annual weight to
dry for a 6 ft\3\ clothes washer is 2,917 pounds per year, whereas the
annual weight to dry according to the clothes dryer test procedure is
1,994 pounds per year, despite the units being a matching pair. (Id.)
AHAM commented that it acknowledges that this difference makes sense
because consumers do not dry in the clothes dryer all the clothes they
wash in the clothes washer. (Id.) However, AHAM emphasized that
lowering the FMC to 2 percent for clothes washer exacerbates this
mismatch in energy contribution. (Id.)
ASAP et al. commented that both DOE's recent analysis for clothes
dryers and real-world data suggest that drying energy usage in the
clothes washers analysis is being underestimated and encouraged DOE to
update its drying energy use calculations in the test procedure to
better align with DOE's clothes dryers analysis and real-world energy
usage. (ASAP et al., No. 37 at pp. 3-4) ASAP et al. noted that in the
September 2021 Preliminary TSD, DOE stated that drying energy use
represents 75 to 83 percent of total energy usage. (Id.) ASAP et al.
therefore commented that changes in drying energy estimates can have a
significant impact on overall energy savings and economic analysis.
(Id.) ASAP et al. emphasized that, based on DOE's April 2021 Clothes
Dryers Preliminary TSD,\24\ the active-mode energy use of a clothes
dryer is between 67 and 93 percent greater than the estimated drying
energy usage presented in the September 2021 Preliminary TSD for top-
loading standard-size and front-loading clothes washers,
respectively.\25\ (Id.) ASAP et al. further commented that the clothes
dryer analysis more closely agrees with real-world clothes dryer energy
use estimates from data from the Energy Information Administration's
(``EIA's'') 2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (``RECS
2015''),\26\ which estimates 776 kWh per year, and NEEA's Dryer Field
Study published in 2014 (``NEEA's Dryer Field Study''),\27\ which
estimates 915 kWh per year. (Id.) ASAP et al. therefore commented that
higher, more realistic drying energy

[[Page 13535]]

usage estimates should further improve the cost-effectiveness of higher
efficiency clothes washers that reduce drying energy use. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ Available online at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0016">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0016</a>.
\25\ ASAP et al. based this estimate on energy use of 700 kWh/
year for clothes dryers, 419 kWh/year for top-loading clothes
washers and 362 kWh/year for front-loading clothes washers.
\26\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information
Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey: 2015 Public
Use Data Files, 2015. Available at <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recspubuse15/pubuse15.html">www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recspubuse15/pubuse15.html</a>.
\27\ Dryer Field Study, 2014. Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance. Available online at <a href="http://neea.org/resources/rbsa-laundry-study">neea.org/resources/rbsa-laundry-study</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ameren et al. encouraged DOE to mathematically adjust RMC to
account for the drying energy of 100 percent cotton textiles using the
relationship established in the 2020 NEEA report \28\ that analyzed the
RMC of two types of test loads across a broad range of RCW efficiency
levels and technology types: the 100-percent cotton load specified in
AHAM's HLW-1-2013 test procedure and the 50/50 cotton-polyester momie
weave test cloth specified in appendix J2 and appendix J. (Ameren et
al., No. 42 at pp. 12-13) The NEEA report also developed a linear
mathematical relationship between the two types of load. (Id.) Ameren
et al. found that this relationship has an R-squared value close to 1
and determined that it could be used to adjust the measured RMC of an
appendix J2 test load to the expected RMC when using an AHAM load.
(Id.) Ameren et al. stated that adjusting the RMC of an appendix J2
test load to an RMC typical of 100 percent cotton textiles would more
realistically account for RCW impacts on drying energy use. (Id.)
Ameren et al. further commented that most typical laundry loads have a
much higher cotton content, which they asserted means that
mathematically adjusting the RMC before calculating drying energy would
better account for typical energy use. (Id.) Ameren et al. also
commented that adjusting the RMC of appendix J2 textiles to an RMC
typical of 100 percent cotton textiles would increase the alignment
between the September 2021 Preliminary TSD's clothes washer drying
energy use calculation and the measured appendix D2 clothes dryer
energy use. (Id.) Ameren et al. added that while other constants such
as DEF \29\ in appendix J2 and appendix J are relatively consistent
with most appendix D1 and D2 dryer measurements, the typical drying
energy calculated in the existing appendix J2 clothes washer test
procedure is much lower than the energy consumed by a conventional
clothes dryer tested by appendix D1 or D2. (Id.) Ameren et al. further
explained that the clothes dryer test procedures use an initial
moisture content of 57.5 percent for the clothes dryer test load, and
using NEEA's mathematical adjustment to increase RMC before calculating
drying energy would make the drying energy calculated in appendix J2
and J more similar to the drying energy calculated in appendix D1 and
D2. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ Foster Porter, Suzanne; Denkenberger, Dave. 2020. Coming
Clean: Revealing Real-World Efficiency of Clothes Washers. Portland,
OR. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. Available online at:
<a href="http://neea.org/resources/coming-cleanrevealing-real-world-efficiency-of-clothes-washers">neea.org/resources/coming-cleanrevealing-real-world-efficiency-of-clothes-washers</a>.
\29\ ``DEF'' is defined in section 4.3 of appendix J2 and
section 4.4 of appendix J as the nominal energy required for a
clothes dryer to remove moisture from clothes and is set equal to
0.5 kWh/lb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ASAP et al. commented that one potential partial explanation for
the apparent underestimation of drying energy usage in the clothes
washer analysis is the estimate for DEF. (ASAP et al., No. 37 at p. 4)
ASAP et al. noted that while DOE assumes a DEF of 0.5 kWh per pound of
moisture removed from clothes, ASAP et al. estimated a higher nominal
DEF of about 0.6 kWh per pound of moisture removed using weighted-
average clothes dryer efficiency ratings and parameters from the
clothes dryers test procedure. (Id.) ASAP et al. also commented that a
2022 NEEA study \30\ suggests that even the clothes dryer test
procedure can underestimate drying energy usage, particularly when a
non-ENERGY STAR-rated top-loading clothes washer is paired with a non-
ENERGY STAR electric dryer. (Id.) ASAP et al. further noted that the
Northwest Regional Technical Forum's most recent estimate for DEF is
0.65 kWh per pounds of moisture removed.\31\ (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ Perfect Pairings? Testing the Energy Efficiency of Matched
Washer-Dryer Sets, 2022. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.
Available online at <a href="http://neea.org/resources/perfect-pairings-testing-the-energy-efficiency-of-matched-washer-dryer-sets">neea.org/resources/perfect-pairings-testing-the-energy-efficiency-of-matched-washer-dryer-sets</a>.
\31\ Regional Technical Forum, Residential Clothes Washers,
2021. ``Residential Clothes Washers v7.1.'' Available online at
<a href="http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measure/clothes-washers-0">rtf.nwcouncil.org/measure/clothes-washers-0</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed, DOE is not addressing test procedure changes in this
energy conservation standards rulemaking. DOE notes that FMC and the
drying energy calculations were specifically addressed in section
III.G.2 of the June 2022 TP Final Rule. 87 FR 33316, 33353-33354.

D. 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 prototype designs that could improve the
efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the
rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list
of technology options for consideration in consultation with
manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then
determines which of those means for improving efficiency are
technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in
commercially-available products or in working prototypes to be
technologically feasible. Sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of the
Process Rule.
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; (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies.
Sections 6(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of the Process Rule. Section
IV.B of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis
for RCWs, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened
out, and those that are the basis for the standards considered in this
rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this
rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the NOPR 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 RCWs,
using the design parameters for the most efficient products available
on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE
determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C of this
proposed rule and in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
For each trial standard level (i.e., TSL), DOE projected energy
savings from application of the TSL to RCWs purchased in the 30-year
period that begins in the year of compliance with the proposed
standards (2027-2056).\32\ The savings are measured over the entire
lifetime of RCWs purchased in the previous 30-year period. DOE
quantified the energy savings

[[Page 13536]]

attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption
between each standards case and the no-new-standards case. The no-new-
standards case represents a projection of energy consumption that
reflects how the market for a product would likely evolve in the
absence of amended energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency levels for each
product class. The TSLs considered for this NOPR are described in
section V.A of this document. DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis
that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE used its national impact analysis (``NIA'') spreadsheet model
to estimate national energy savings (``NES'') and national water
savings (``NWS'') from potential amended or new standards for RCWs. The
NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this document)
calculates energy savings in terms of 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 primary
energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to
generate and transmit the site electricity. For natural gas, the
primary energy savings are considered to be equal to the site energy
savings. DOE also calculates NES in terms of FFC energy savings. 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
conservation standards.\33\ DOE's approach is based on the calculation
of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered
products or equipment. For more information on FFC energy savings, see
section IV.H.2 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy
and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as
amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Significance of Savings
To adopt any new or amended 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))
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\34\ For
example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than
products with relatively constant demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\34\ The numeric threshold for determining the significance of
energy savings established in a final rule published on February 14,
2020 (85 FR 8626, 8670), was subsequently eliminated in a final rule
published on December 13, 2021 (86 FR 70892).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a
case-by-case basis, taking into account the significance of cumulative
FFC national energy savings, the cumulative FFC emissions reductions,
and the need to confront the global climate crisis, among other
factors. As discussed in section V.C.1 of this document, DOE is
proposing to adopt TSL 4, which would save an estimated 1.45 quads of
energy (FFC) over 30 years. DOE has initially determined the energy
savings from the proposed standard levels are ``significant'' within
the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).

F. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria
As noted previously, 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)(I)-(VII)) The
following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven
factors in this proposed rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
In determining the impacts of a potential amended standard on
manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of
this document. DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine
the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term
assessment--based on the cost and capital requirements during the
period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must
comply with the regulation--and a long-term assessment over a 30-year
period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) INPV, which
values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows, (2)
cash flows by year, (3) changes in revenue and income, and (4) 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 consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular
standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on
identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected
disproportionately by a standard.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and
PBP)
EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the
type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product
that are likely to result from a 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. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as
product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance
and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for
consumers. 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.
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 standards are assumed to take effect.
For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will
purchase the covered products in the first year of compliance with new
or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency
levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected
market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and
PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this
document.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory

[[Page 13537]]

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 III.E of this document, DOE uses the NIA
spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
In establishing product classes and in evaluating design options
and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential
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
available to DOE, the standards proposed in this document would not
reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration
in this proposed rulemaking.
e. 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
publish and respond to the Attorney General's determination in the
final rule. DOE invites comment from the public regarding the
competitive impacts that are likely to result from this proposed rule.
In addition, stakeholders may also provide comments separately to DOJ
regarding these potential impacts. See the ADDRESSES section for
information to send comments to DOJ.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
DOE also considers the need for national energy and water
conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) 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, as
discussed in section IV.M of this document.
DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits
associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take
into account when considering the need for national energy
conservation. The proposed standards are likely to result in
environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air
pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with energy production and
use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how potential
standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.K of
this document; the estimated emissions impacts are reported in section
V.B.6 of this document. DOE also estimates the economic value of
climate and health benefits from certain emissions reductions resulting
from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L of this
document.
g. Other Factors
In determining whether an energy conservation standard is
economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To
the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic
justification that does not fit into the other categories described
previously, DOE could consider such information under ``other
factors.''
2. Rebuttable Presumption
As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a
rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is
economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a
product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of
the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as
calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP
analyses generate values used to calculate the 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 an economic analysis that considers
the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and
the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The
results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the
economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby
supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of
economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation
is discussed in section IV.F.9 of this proposed rule.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this
rulemaking with regard to RCWs. Separate subsections address each
component of DOE's analyses.
DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the
standards proposed in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet
that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new
energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a
second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and
calculates national energy savings and net present value of total
consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy
conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the
Government Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), to assess manufacturer
impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are
available on the DOE website for this rulemaking: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014</a>. Additionally, DOE used output from the
latest version of the EIA's Annual Energy Outlook (``AEO''), a widely
known energy projection for the United States, for the emissions and
utility impact analyses.

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 rulemaking include (1) a determination of the scope
of the rulemaking and product classes, (2) manufacturers and industry
structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information,
(5) market and industry

[[Page 13538]]

trends; and (6) technologies or design options that could improve the
energy efficiency of RCWs. The key findings of DOE's market assessment
are summarized in the following sections. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD
for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.
1. Product Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
may establish separate standards for a group of covered products (i.e.,
establish a separate product class) if DOE determines that separate
standards are justified based on the type of energy used, or if DOE
determines that a product's capacity or other performance-related
feature justifies a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making a
determination whether a performance-related feature justifies a
different standard, DOE must consider factors such as the utility of
the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE determines are
appropriate. (Id.)
DOE currently defines separate energy conservation standards for
four RCW product classes (10 CFR 430.32(g)(4)):

<bullet> Top-loading, compact (less than 1.6 ft\3\ capacity)
<bullet> Top-loading, standard-size (1.6 ft\3\ or greater capacity)
<bullet> Front-loading, compact (less than 1.6 ft\3\ capacity)
<bullet> Front-loading, standard-size (1.6 ft\3\ or greater capacity)

In the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE analyzed four
potential product classes for RCWs using a threshold of 3.0 ft\3\ to
differentiate between compact and standard-size front-loading RCWs, in
contrast to the existing threshold of 1.6 ft\3\, resulting in the
following product classes being analyzed:

<bullet> Top-loading, compact (less than 1.6 ft\3\ capacity)
<bullet> Top-loading, standard-size (1.6 ft\3\ capacity or greater)
<bullet> Front-loading, compact (less than 3.0 ft\3\ capacity)
<bullet> Front-loading, standard-size (3.0 ft\3\ capacity or greater)

As noted in chapter 2 of the September 2021 Preliminary TSD, there
are no front-loading RCWs with a capacity less than 1.6 ft\3\ certified
to DOE, indicating that the current threshold of 1.6 ft\3\ may no
longer be a relevant differentiator of capacity within the front-
loading RCW market. Based on front-loading RCW models certified in
DOE's Compliance Certification Database (``CCD''),\35\ DOE identified a
gap in front-loading capacity between 2.8 ft\3\ and 3.4 ft\3\ (i.e., no
products are available on the market within this range). The capacity
gap is directly related to cabinet size--capacities less than 2.8 ft\3\
correspond to a 24-inch cabinet width, and capacities larger than 3.4
ft\3\ correspond to a 27-inch cabinet width. In the September 2021
Preliminary Analysis, DOE evaluated an updated capacity threshold of
3.0 ft\3\ between compact-size and standard-size to align more closely
with product differentiation in the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ DOE's Compliance Certification Database is available at
<a href="http://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data">www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE requested comment
on whether it should revise the definitions of the front-loading
product classes by increasing the capacity threshold of the front-
loading compact product class to 3.0 ft\3\. DOE also requested comment
on whether any other changes to product class definitions are
warranted.
Prior to the May 2012 Final Rule, DOE also defined a separate RCW
product class for top-loading semi-automatic clothes washers. Semi-
automatic clothes washers are designed to be intermittently attached to
a kitchen or bathroom faucet and require user intervention to regulate
the water temperature by adjusting the external water faucet valves.
Top-loading semi-automatic clothes washers were subject to a design
standard requiring an unheated rinse water option, as established by
the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987, Public Law 100-
12 (``NAECA''). NAECA amended EPCA to require that all rinse cycles of
RCWs shall include an unheated water option, but may have a heated
water rinse option, for products manufactured on or after January 1,
1988.
In the May 2012 Final Rule, DOE eliminated the top-loading semi-
automatic product class distinction, having determined based on its
market research and comments submitted by AHAM and three manufacturers
that such products were no longer available on the market. 77 FR 32308,
32317. The top-loading standard-size levels that were established in
the May 2012 Final Rule were based on consideration of only top-loading
automatic clothes washers.
In chapter 2 of the September 2021 Preliminary TSD, DOE discussed
that it is now aware of multiple top-loading semi-automatic clothes
washers on the market, from multiple manufacturers. DOE stated that it
was considering whether it should reinstate an RCW product class
definition for top-loading semi-automatic clothes washers, and whether
it should consider a performance-based standard rather than the design
standard established by EPCA as amended. DOE noted, however, that
because the user of a semi-automatic clothes washer controls the water
temperature by adjusting the external water faucet valves, semi-
automatic clothes washers inherently provide the option for an unheated
rinse. Therefore, DOE believes that a design standard that requires an
unheated rinse option may be superfluous for semi-automatic clothes
washers.
In the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE requested comment
on whether it should reinstate a product class definition for top-
loading semi-automatic clothes washers. DOE requested comment on its
preliminary conclusion that that a design standard that requires an
unheated rinse option may be superfluous for semi-automatic clothes
washers.
AHAM presented data indicating the shipment weighted average
capacity for clothes washers from 1981-2020. (AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 13-
14) Based on this data, AHAM commented that a reassessment of the
``compact'' definition would be justified since clothes washer
capacities in general have increased from an average of 2.63 ft\3\ in
1990 to 4.25 ft\3\ in 2020. (Id.)
AHAM recommended that DOE change the definition of the compact
product class in order to retain consumer utility of smaller-capacity
and smaller-width products for consumers. (AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 13-15)
AHAM recommended that DOE add an upper width limit of 24 inches in the
proposed compact product class definition, such that a top-loading or
front-loading compact product would either have a capacity less than
1.6 ft\3\, or a width less than or equal to 24 inches. (Id.) AHAM also
commented that typically, based on a review of retailer websites,
products advertised as ``compact'' or ``portable'' today appear to be
under 1.6 ft\3\ or 24 inches in width or less. (Id.) AHAM commented
that it agrees with DOE's assessment that products with smaller widths
and capacities provide a utility to consumers since they can be used in
smaller spaces, can be moved more easily from place-to-place, or can be
used together with a standard-size clothes washer. (Id.) AHAM also
agrees with DOE's acknowledgement that these products, due to their
smaller size, cannot achieve the same levels of efficiency as larger
products due to technological limitations such as drum

[[Page 13539]]

diameter and capacity, or due to being geared toward niche consumer
usage such as portability or an add-on to a standard-size clothes
washer. (Id.)
Whirlpool commented that it agrees with DOE's proposal to change
the threshold for the front-loading compact product class and suggested
that DOE make further product class changes. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at p.
19) Whirlpool specifically suggested that DOE change the definition of
compact clothes washers to be based on product width, corresponding to
how they are marketed to consumers as compact or standard size. (Id.)
Whirlpool added that clothes washers with 24-inch widths and smaller
are overwhelmingly marketed as ``compact,'' regardless of their
capacity. (Id.)
Whirlpool also recommended that for standard-size clothes washers,
DOE separate the standard-size product class into three product
classes: standard, small (<=4.0 ft\3\); standard, medium (>4.0 ft\3\ to
<=5.0 ft\3\); and standard, large (>5.0 ft\3\ and above). (Whirlpool,
No. 39 at p. 19) Whirlpool commented that there are numerous
performance, technology, efficiency, and consumer-relevant differences
between clothes washers in Whirlpool's suggested product classes. (Id.)
Whirlpool further explained that entry-level price point clothes
washers generally have capacities less than or equal to 4 ft\3\ and
that the smaller diameter wash baskets of these units create challenges
in driving water extraction. (Id.) Whirlpool added that these clothes
washers also have shorter cycle times and more basic feature sets and
controls. (Id.)
Whirlpool added that even with a removal of the capacity benefit in
the EER and WER efficiency metrics, there are still other technological
challenges for clothes washers with smaller cabinet widths since
spatial limitations prevent adding technologies that increase
efficiency, including larger motors and larger wash baskets to increase
spin speed. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 19)
The CA IOUs commented that adjustments to increase the size of the
front-loading compact product class are not warranted, and added that
they are instead supportive of an equation-based metric that can
account for the efficiency differences related to capacity. (CA IOUs,
No. 43 at pp. 3-4) The CA IOUs added that they believe the definition
of standard-size versus compact product classes artificially segments
the data, and that performance is correlated with capacity without a
clear delineation. (Id.) The CA IOUs expressed three primary concerns
related to the changes to the product class definitions. (Id.) First,
the CA IOUs commented that the proposed changes to capacity definitions
would create a different definition of ``compact'' for top- and front-
loading RCWs, which the CA IOUs asserted would add confusion to the
market. (Id.) Second, the CA IOUs commented that there likely remains
an inherent relationship between capacity and performance in the test
procedure, which is insufficiently represented by the two large
discrete product class groupings of compact size and standard size.
(Id.) The CA IOUs noted that there was significant interest from
stakeholders in response to the August 2019 RFI for DOE to consider
narrower capacity ranges to facilitate a separate analysis for larger
clothes washers. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented that, while they believe
this may result in some statistical improvement in the original
analysis, they would prefer an equation-based standard that can correct
for the continuum of product capacities. (Id.) The CA IOUs also
specified that creating more narrow capacity ranges may have unintended
consequences of incentivizing manufacturers to produce products in one
capacity size over another due to less stringent efficiency standards
in neighboring classes. (Id.) Third, the CA IOUs commented that while
DOE can use capacity or another ``performance related'' feature to
justify a higher or lower standard under EPCA, the CA IOUs expressed
concern regarding the arbitrary nature of the capacity definitions,
particularly for front-loading clothes washers. (Id.) The CA IOUs added
that under the appendix J2 efficiency metrics, product efficiencies
strongly varied with capacity and may continue to do so under the
appendix J efficiency metrics. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented that a more
appropriate approach would be to use an equation-based standard with a
capacity, similar to what is used under the consumer refrigerators/
refrigerator-freezers/freezers standard. (Id.)
Ameren et al. commented that while they do not have a specific
recommendation for the compact RCW definition, they encourage DOE to
ensure that changing the compact product class to incorporate larger
capacities does not enable backsliding. (Ameren et al., No. 42 at p.
18) Ameren et al. commented that DOE's working definition of less than
1.6 ft\3\ for top-loading clothes washers and less than 2.5 ft\3\ for
front-loading clothes washers would not result in backsliding because
there is not a front-loading product less than 1.6 ft\3\ on the market.
(Id.) However, Ameren et al. noted that, if defined differently, RCW
models presently considered standard-sized (and therefore subject to a
higher efficiency standard) could be recategorized as compact (and
therefore subject to a lower efficiency standard). (Id.)
As discussed, currently, no front-loading products with a capacity
less than 1.6 ft\3\ are certified to DOE as being available on the
market, indicating that the current threshold of 1.6 ft\3\ is no longer
a relevant differentiator of capacity within the front-loading RCW
market. DOE analysis tentatively confirms AHAM and Whirlpool's comments
that despite the removal of the capacity ``bias'' in the EER and WER
efficiency metrics, the reduced dimensions of smaller-width products
limit the use of certain technologies for increasing efficiency, such
as larger wash baskets that can exert a higher g-force on clothing. For
this reason, DOE tentatively concludes that a separate product class is
warranted for space-constrained front-loading RCWs at a revised
threshold that is more relevant to the current market.
DOE recognizes that one of the defining characteristics of front-
loading RCWs marketed as ``compact'' is the width-constrained design
(i.e., the ability for the clothes washer to be installed in narrow
space that would not accommodate a full-size clothes washer). DOE
considered defining the front-loading compact-size product classes on
the basis of width. Based on DOE's market research, and supported by
comments from AHAM and manufacturers, products marketed as ``compact''
typically have a nominal cabinet width of 24-inches, whereas full-size
products most typically have a nominal cabinet width of 27 inches. DOE
has identified a number of practical challenges in basing the product
class distinction on a measurement of the width of a clothes washer.
The test procedure would need to require measuring the width of the
clothes washer and would need to specify how the measurement would be
performed. While DOE could consider such amendments to its test
procedure, DOE has identified nuances in product design that could
create complexities in defining such a measurement. For example, on
front-loading clothes washers, DOE has observed that certain aesthetic
features, such as the borders of the control panel, may extend beyond
the width of the main body of the cabinet. In general, certain
measurements of width may not provide an appropriate representation of
product width as it relates to product class designation. DOE also
notes that although front-loading clothes washers are most often
marketed according to

[[Page 13540]]

their nominal width as a whole number, the actual width may be a
fraction of an inch higher or lower than the advertised nominal width.
Furthermore, DOE is concerned that by defining the ``compact-size''
threshold as a width equal to or less than 24 inches, for example, if a
manufacturer were to bring to market a 25-inch width product, such a
product would be defined as standard-size but would presumably share
many of the same inherent efficiency constraints as a 24-inch product
(i.e., a 25-inch product may be more appropriately classified as
compact-size rather than standard-size).
Having considered these challenges in defining the front-loading
compact-size threshold on the basis of product width, DOE further
considered defining the threshold based on an updated capacity value
that would be more relevant to the current market than the existing
threshold of 1.6 ft\3\. Based on front-loading RCW models currently
certified in DOE's CCD, there is a gap in front-loading capacity
between 2.8 ft\3\ and 3.4 ft\3\ (i.e., no products are available on the
market within this range), consistent with DOE's findings presented in
the September 2021 Preliminary TSD. DOE evaluated every front-loading
model in the CCD and has determined that this capacity gap directly
correlates with nominal cabinet size--capacities less than 2.8 ft\3\
correspond to a nominal 24-inch cabinet width, and capacities larger
than 3.4 ft\3\ correspond to a nominal 27-inch cabinet width or
greater. Based on this analysis, DOE tentatively concludes that for
front-loading RCWs, using a capacity threshold rather than a width
threshold would provide a perfectly correlated proxy for
differentiating between standard-size products and space-constrained
products. DOE therefore proposes to define a threshold of 3.0 ft\3\ to
differentiate between compact-size and standard-size front-loading
RCWs. DOE further notes that given the current gap in capacity between
2.8 ft\3\ and 3.4 ft\3\ for units currently on the market, defining the
threshold at 3.0 ft\3\ would provide opportunities for manufacturers to
introduce compact-size products with slightly higher capacity, or
standard-size products with slightly lower capacity, with such
potential products being classified within the appropriate product
class. DOE would consider other means for defining the threshold
between the compact-size and standard-size front-loading product
classes if in the future a capacity threshold were to no longer
provides a clear proxy to distinguish between standard-size products
and space-constrained products.
Specific to the front-loading standard-size product class, DOE
evaluated the merits of separately defining a larger product class
(e.g., greater than 5.0 ft\3\), as suggested by multiple commenters.
Data submitted by AHAM indicates a shipment-weighted average capacity
of around 4.2 ft\3\ for all RCWs, and the results of the engineering
analysis indicate that a capacity of 4.2 ft\3\ is representative of the
baseline efficiency level for the standard-size front-loading product
class. DOE's testing and teardown analysis indicates that all of the
evaluated efficiency levels for the standard-size front-loading product
class can be achieved by units at 4.2 ft\3\ capacity (i.e., an increase
in capacity is not required as a means for achieving the higher
efficiency levels analyzed). On this basis, DOE tentatively determines
that additional capacity-based product classes within the standard-size
front-loading product class are not warranted.
For top-loading clothes washers, DOE proposes in this NOPR to
maintain the existing ``compact'' and ``standard'' product class
distinctions (i.e., using a capacity threshold of 1.6 ft\3\ to
differentiate the two classes); however, DOE continues to consider
alternative approaches as discussed further in the paragraphs that
follow and in chapter 3 and chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
Unlike for front-loading RCWs, top-loading compact-size products
are available on the market at capacities less than 1.6 ft\3\ (i.e.,
the current threshold). Considering only automatic top-loading clothes
washers,\36\ those with capacity less than 1.6 ft\3\ are exclusively
height-constrained ``companion'' clothes washers, which are designed to
serve as an auxiliary clothes washer for washing a small or delicate
load while simultaneously washing a ``normal'' load in the accompanying
standard-size RCW.\37\ Among standard-size top-loading clothes washers
(i.e., those with capacity equal to or greater than 1.6 ft\3\), DOE's
CCD indicates a relatively continuous spectrum of capacities available
on the market across the entire range (i.e., no large gaps in
capacity), with no apparent capacity threshold that closely correlates
with product differentiation on the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ As discussed further in section IV.C.2.c of this document,
the CCD includes both automatic clothes washer models and semi-
automatic clothes washer models certified within the top-loading
compact product class.
\37\ Companion clothes washers are currently available in two
different configurations: (1) Integrated into (i.e., built into) the
cabinet above a standard-size front-loading RCW, and (2) built into
a pedestal drawer for installation underneath a standard-size front-
loading RCW. Both configurations are constrained in the height
dimension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For standard-size top-loading RCWs, DOE's engineering analysis
indicates that despite the removal of capacity ``bias'' from the EER
and WER metrics, increases in capacity are required to achieve higher
efficiency levels beyond EL 1. (See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD). DOE
continues to consider whether this conclusion justifies separating the
standard-size product class into separate product classes, as suggested
by Whirlpool. Given this close relationship between efficiency and
capacity, DOE also continues to consider whether to specify an
equation-based standard for the top-loading standard-size product
class, as suggested by the CA IOUs. Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD provides
further details of DOE's consideration of these potential alternate
product class definitions for top-loading standard-size RCWs.
DOE recognizes that an equations-based standards approach would be
unfamiliar to RCW stakeholders and would significantly alter the
structure of the standards analysis. As such, the analysis of potential
amended standards, and how such standards would impact the existing
market, could be difficult for stakeholders to interpret, particularly
given the proposed change in metrics to EER and WER. DOE also
recognizes that implementing equation-based standards could potentially
increase compliance burden from manufacturers. For example, a simple
modification made to the balance ring on a top-loading model or the
door shape on a front-loading model for aesthetic purposes could change
the model's measured capacity, which would in turn change the standard
applicable to that unit and would therefore require corresponding
changes to the controls to reduce energy and water use. As
manufacturers iterate product designs, any change that would affect a
model's measured capacity would result in the model being subject to a
different standard.
In addition, defining an equation-based standard for only the top-
loading standard-size product class would create complexity that may
lead to confusion or added regulatory burden for manufacturers.
At this time, DOE tentatively determines that the increased
complexity and potential burdens of an equation-based standard outweigh
the benefits. As discussed, in this NOPR, DOE proposes a numerically
based standard for the top-loading standard-size product class.

[[Page 13541]]

In response to the CA IOUs' concern that having a different
definition of the ``compact'' threshold for top-loading and front-
loading RCWs would add confusion to the market, DOE is proposing to
rename the product class for top-loading RCWs with capacities less than
1.6 ft\3\ as ``ultra-compact.''
In response to Ameren et al.'s comment that changing the compact
product class threshold should not enable backsliding, DOE notes that,
as discussed, EPCA contains what is known as an ``anti-backsliding''
provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended
standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or
decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) As discussed in section IV.C.2.a of this
document, DOE used the current DOE standard applicable to front-loading
standard-size clothes washers as the baseline efficiency level for the
newly created front-loading compact-size product class, which prevents
any possibility of backsliding.
Ameren et al. provided comments pertaining to portable clothes
washers, which the comment equates with semi-automatic clothes washers.
(Ameren et al., No. 42 at pp. 6-8). Ameren et al. commented that since
the last standards rulemaking, portable RCWs are now widely available
for sale through national retailers and online direct-to-consumer
marketplaces. (Id.) Ameren et al. referenced NEEA research as verifying
that the portable RCWs currently on the market meet or exceed current
standards, and that therefore they do not require a separate product
class. (Id.) Ameren et al. also commented that nothing should prevent
efficient technologies employed in conventional automatic top-loading
RCWs from being leveraged in portable top-loading RCWs, including wash
plates and higher spin speeds. (Id.)
DOE cautions that portable clothes washers \38\ as a whole
represent a broader category of clothes washers than semi-automatic
clothes washers specifically. Although all semi-automatic clothes
washers currently on the market are portable, not all portable clothes
washers on the market are semi-automatic--certain portable clothes
washers are automatic (i.e., they provide means for internal regulation
of water temperature, as opposed to requiring the user to adjust the
water temperature externally to the clothes washer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ In this NOPR, DOE uses the term ``portable clothes washer''
to mean a clothes washer, typically with caster wheels, designed to
be easily moved by the consumer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

With regard to Ameren et al.'s comment that portable RCWs currently
on the market meet or exceed current standards and therefore do not
require a separate product class, DOE does not agree that this
conclusion can be applied to semi-automatic clothes washers
specifically, since many of the data points referenced by Ameren et al.
correspond to automatic top-loading clothes washers. In addition,
appendix J includes significant changes to the testing of semi-
automatic clothes washers--which improve the representativeness of the
test results while reducing test burden--such that when tested under
appendix J, a semi-automatic clothes washer uses significantly more hot
water (and therefore has inherently lower EER values) than would a
similarly-sized automatic clothes washer.\39\ Section IV.C.2.c of this
document provides further discussion of the efficiency level analysis
for semi-automatic clothes washers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\39\ For example, most automatic clothes washers offer only a
cold rinse, whereas appendix J requires semi-automatic clothes
washers to be tested on both Hot Wash/Hot Rinse, and Warm Wash/Warm
Rinse cycles, based on the assumption that the user would not adjust
the water temperature during the cycle. 87 FR 33316. Significantly
more hot water is used in these cycles than on the equivalent cycles
(Hot Wash/Cold Rinse and Warm Wash/Cold Rinse) on an automatic
clothes washer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given the reemergence of semi-automatic clothes washers on the
market, and improvements to the test procedure to improve the
representativeness of test results for semi-automatic clothes washers,
DOE is proposing to re-establish a separate product class for semi-
automatic clothes washers and to establish performance-based standards
for semi-automatic clothes washers.
In summary, for this NOPR, DOE analyzed five product classes for
RCWs as follows:

<bullet> Semi-automatic clothes washers
<bullet> Automatic clothes washers: \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\40\ For simplicity, many of the tables in the following
sections of this document omit the designation that these four
product classes pertain to automatic clothes washers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[cir] Top-loading, ultra-compact (less than 1.6 ft\3\ capacity)
[cir] Top-loading, standard-size (1.6 ft\3\ or greater capacity)
[cir] Front-loading, compact (less than 3.0 ft\3\ capacity)
[cir] Front-loading, standard-size (3.0 ft\3\ or greater capacity)

DOE seeks comment on the product class structure analyzed in this
NOPR.
2. Technology Options
In the preliminary market analysis and technology assessment, DOE
identified a comprehensive list of technology options that would be
expected to improve the efficiency of RCWs, as measured by the DOE test
procedures.\41\ Initially, these technologies encompass all those that
DOE believes are technologically feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ See section 3.15.2 of the September 2021 Preliminary TSD.
Available online at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BTSTD-0014-0030">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BTSTD-0014-0030</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE requested
information on any technology options not identified in the September
2021 Preliminary TSD that manufacturers may use to attain higher
efficiency levels of RCWs.
Ameren et al. commented in support of DOE's inclusion of all
relevant technologies, including those to reduce drying energy. (Ameren
et al., No. 42 at p. 19) Ameren et al. also commented that they
appreciate DOE's consideration of technologies that have been found in
working prototypes in addition to those available in current models.
(Id.)
In this NOPR, DOE considered the technology options listed in Table
IV.1. In addition to the technology options DOE considered for the
September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE added capacity increase as a
technology option for this NOPR.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\42\ In this NOPR, DOE considers capacity increase only as a
technology option of ``last resort.'' In defining a representative
``path'' that manufacturers would be expected to use to achieve
higher efficiency levels, DOE included capacity increase only for
those efficiency levels that cannot be reasonably achieved without
an increase in capacity. See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for more
details.

Table IV.1--Technology Options for Residential Clothes Washers
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methods for Decreasing Water Use: *
Adaptive water fill controls.
Hardware features enabling lower water levels.
Spray rinse.
Polymer bead cleaning.
Methods for Decreasing Machine Energy:
More efficient motor.
Direct drive motor.
Methods for Decreasing Water Heating Energy:
Wash temperature decrease.
Ozonated laundering.
Methods for Decreasing Drying Energy:
Hardware features enabling spin speed increase.
Spin time increase.
Methods for Decreasing Standby Energy:
Lower standby power components.
Methods for Increasing Overall Efficiency:
Capacity increase.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Most of the methods for decreasing water use are also methods for
decreasing water heating energy, since less hot water is used.

[[Page 13542]]

Chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD includes the detailed descriptions of
each technology option.
DOE seeks comment on the technology options not identified in this
NOPR that manufacturers may use to attain higher efficiency levels of
RCWs.

B. Screening Analysis

DOE uses the following five 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 commercially viable, existing
prototypes will not be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is
determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the
time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that
technology will not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on product utility. If a technology is determined to
have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to
subgroups of consumers, or 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) Safety of technologies. If it is determined that a technology
would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not
be considered further.
(5) Unique-pathway proprietary technologies. If a proprietary
technology has proprietary protection and represents a unique pathway
to achieving a given efficiency level, it will not be considered
further due to the potential for monopolistic concerns.
10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b).
In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination
of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria,
it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering
analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed in
the following sections.
The subsequent sections include comments from interested parties
pertinent to the screening criteria, DOE's evaluation of each
technology option against the screening analysis criteria, and whether
DOE determined that a technology option should be excluded (``screened
out'') based on the screening criteria.
1. Screened-Out Technologies
In chapter 4 of the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE
screened out electrolytic disassociation of water, ozonated laundering,
and polymer bead cleaning on the basis of their practicability to
install, manufacture and service. DOE also noted that electrolytic
disassociation of water could have impacts on product utility or
availability and that polymer bead cleaning was a unique-pathway
proprietary technology.
In the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE sought comment on
whether any additional technology options should be screened out on the
basis of any of the screening criteria.
AHAM commented that decreasing water temperature, particularly on
the warmest warm wash temperature, could decrease cleaning and rinsing
performance by making it harder to remove fatty soils, which are
soluble around 85 degrees Fahrenheit (``[deg]F''). (AHAM, No. 40 at pp.
9-10) AHAM added that despite the existence of some detergents designed
for lower temperatures, detergents alone cannot solve this issue. (Id.)
AHAM commented that decreased water temperature could also have
negative impacts on fabric care resulting from reduced detergent
removal, biofilm accumulation, reduced particulate removal, and
increased white residues on clothing. (Id.) AHAM also noted that if
wash time is increased to compensate for a decrease in cleaning
performance at lower wash temperatures, the cycle time will
consequently increase. (Id.)
Whirlpool suggested that lowering wash temperatures from current
levels should not be a technology option considered by DOE. (Whirlpool,
No. 39 at pp. 6-8) Whirlpool added that it strongly believes that wash
temperatures are already low enough, and that lowering temperatures
further will effectively create a disconnect between consumer
perceptions of acceptable wash water temperatures and what Whirlpool
could actually offer. (Id.) Whirlpool commented that this impact is
compounded by the proposed appendix J test procedure, which proposes to
test the hottest and coldest Warm Wash/Cold Rinse settings for all
clothes washers instead of using the 25/50/75 test.\43\ (Id.) Whirlpool
commented that changing the test procedure at the same time as the
energy conservation standards may impede Whirlpool's ability to offer
warm wash temperatures that consumers find acceptable and could affect
clothes washers' ability to consistently clean laundry to the
consumers' satisfaction, since higher temperatures are needed to
effectively remove fatty soils, white residue, and particulates from
laundry. (Id.) Whirlpool further commented that DOE's standards should
not drive wash water temperatures below levels that are acceptable
based on consumer perceptions of these temperatures. (Id.) Whirlpool
recommended that instead, DOE's standards should protect the ability of
clothes washers to offer adequate wash temperatures that align with
consumer expectations and can deliver on the core purpose of owning and
using a clothes washer, which is to remove soils and clean clothes.
(Id.) Whirlpool noted that the overall impact of lowering wash
temperature on improving efficiency is minimal in comparison to other
technology options like improving spin speed, but it is still something
manufacturers must consider when making tradeoffs between cost and
efficiency when designing a clothes washer to meet new standards. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ The ``25/50/75'' test refers to the provision in section
3.5 of appendix J2 that allows a clothes washer that has four or
more Warm Wash/Cold Rinse temperature selections to be tested at the
25-percent, 50-percent, and 75-percent positions of the temperature
selection device between the hottest hot (<=135 [deg]F (57.2
[deg]C)) wash and the coldest cold wash. If a selection is not
available at the 25-, 50- or 75-percent position, in place of each
such unavailable selection, the next warmer temperature selection
shall be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whirlpool further commented that detergents become less effective
at lower wash temperatures, and that consumers will see this reduction
immediately or within several loads, depending on the soil type on the
clothing. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 11) Whirlpool added that even
detergents formulated specifically for cold water washing may not be
validated for temperatures below 70 [deg]F. (Id.) Whirlpool noted that
in northern states such as Michigan, yearly ground water temperatures
are in the 42-49 [deg]F range, and that Whirlpool is not aware of any
detergent that was formulated and validated for performance at
temperatures that low. (Id.) Whirlpool stated that many clothes washers
on the market today have tap cold options, and some have a variety of
cold and cool temperatures that mix in some amount of hot water. (Id.)
Whirlpool commented that some clothes washers offer these temperatures
in the 55 [deg]F range. (Id.) Whirlpool expressed concern that, due to
any amendments to the standards that necessitate a reduction in wash

[[Page 13543]]

temperatures, the temperature range of these tap cold, cold, and cool
settings may be driven down well below the validated temperatures for
good performance for even the best detergent formulations on the
market. (Id.) Whirlpool added that this problem would be even more
pronounced for the cheaper and less effective detergents, which may be
popular with low-income consumers. (Id.) Whirlpool concluded that
detergents would need to be reformulated to reflect this broad-scale
lowering of wash temperatures in clothes washers, and Whirlpool is not
sure if it would be possible to validate a detergent for good
performance at these lower temperatures. (Id.)
Unlike certain other discrete technology options evaluated by DOE
(e.g., direct drive motor), wash temperature decrease can be
implemented to varying extents. For example, some manufacturers may
implement it to small extent (e.g., a decrease by 0.5 [deg]F), whereas
other manufacturers may implement it to a significantly larger extent
(e.g., a decrease of 5 [deg]F or more). In addition, DOE observes
through testing that manufacturers employ a wide variety of ``paths''
to achieve higher efficiency levels--some manufacturers may opt to
reduce wash temperatures as a means for achieving a particular
efficiency level, whereas other manufacturers may prioritize
maintaining wash temperatures and instead reducing motor energy use or
drying energy. Indeed, through its testing, as discussed in a test
report accompanying this NOPR (hereafter, the ``performance
characteristics test report''), which is available in the docket for
this rulemaking, DOE has observed a wide range of wash temperatures
available on the market among products with identical efficiency
ratings. Because of this variation in implementation from manufacturer
to manufacturer, and because DOE observes that some manufacturers
choose a ``path'' to higher efficiency that includes reduced wash
temperatures, DOE has not screened out decreased wash temperatures as a
design option for improving efficiency.
In chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD, section 5.5.3 describes the design
option paths most typically associated with each analyzed efficiency
level within each product class, based on DOE's testing and teardowns
of a representative sample of units on the market. For the top-loading
standard-size product class, the design option path considered by DOE
for the analysis incorporates a slight reduction in hot wash water
temperatures at EL 3 and a more substantive reduction in hot wash water
temperatures at EL 4, reflecting the most prevalent design option path
used by units currently on the market at these ELs. Although the most
typical design option path includes reduced wash temperatures, DOE's
analysis described in the performance characteristics test report
suggests that the proposed efficiency level (in particular, EL 3 for
the top-loading standard-size product class) can be achieved through a
variety of design option paths, including paths that do not require a
substantive reduction in wash temperatures compared to the range of
wash temperatures provided by lower-efficiency units. Such design
option paths could incorporate more efficient motors or higher spin
speeds, for example, in lieu of any reductions in wash water
temperatures. Such alternate design option paths would have higher
manufacturing costs than a path that uses reduction in wash water
temperatures.
Additionally, for this NOPR analysis, DOE partially screened out
capacity increase as a technology option. Specifically, DOE screened
out any capacity increase that would require a corresponding increase
in cabinet width larger than 27 inches, on the basis of the
practicability to install and service RCWs with cabinet widths larger
than 27 inches. DOE recognizes that products with a width greater than
27 inches may not be able to fit through many standards-size interior
doorways.
For the reasons discussed in chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD, for this
NOPR analysis DOE screened out ozonated laundering, and polymer bead
cleaning on the basis of their practicability to install, manufacture
and service.
DOE seeks comment on whether any additional technology options
should be screened out on the basis of any of the screening criteria in
this NOPR.
2. Remaining Technologies
Through a review of each technology, DOE retained (i.e., did not
screen out) the technology options listed in Table IV.2 and tentatively
concludes that each of these technologies meets all five screening
criteria to be examined further as design options.

Table IV.2--Retained Design Options for Residential Clothes Washers
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methods for Decreasing Water Use: *
Adaptive water fill controls.
Hardware features enabling lower water levels.
Spray Rinse.
Methods for Decreasing Machine Energy:
More efficient motor.
Direct drive motor.
Methods for Decreasing Water Heating Energy:
Wash temperature decrease.
Methods for Decreasing Drying Energy:
Hardware features enabling spin speed increase.
Spin time increase.
Methods for Decreasing Standby Energy:
Lower Standby power components.
Methods for Increasing Overall Efficiency:
Capacity increase (without requiring a cabinet width increase).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Most of the methods for decreasing water use are also methods for
decreasing water heating energy, since less hot water is used.

DOE has initially determined that these technology options are
technologically feasible because they are being used or have previously
been used in commercially available products or working prototypes. DOE
also finds that all of the remaining technology options meet the other
screening criteria (i.e., practicable to manufacture, install, and
service; do not result in adverse impacts on product utility or product
availability; do not result in adverse impacts on health or safety; and
do not represent unique-pathway proprietary technologies). For
additional details, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.

C. Engineering Analysis

The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the
relationship between the efficiency and cost of RCWs. There are two
elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the selection of
efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the ``efficiency analysis'') and
the determination of product cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the
``cost analysis''). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency
products, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations not
eliminated by the screening analysis. For each product class, DOE
estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the
product at efficiency levels above the baseline. The output of the
engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency ``curves'' that are
used in downstream analyses (i.e., the LCC and PBP analyses and the
NIA).
In this section, DOE discusses comments received in response to the
prediction tool developed in support of the September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis. In the sections that follow, DOE details the efficiency
levels analyzed for each product class; the approach used to develop
cost estimates for each efficiency level and the resulting cost-
efficiency relationship; the equations used to translate IMEF and IWF
into EER and WER; and the

[[Page 13544]]

approach used to develop the manufacturer markup.
In response to the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, ASAP et al.
commented generally in support of DOE's approach to select efficiency
levels based on the proposed new efficiency metrics, EER and WER. (ASAP
et al., No. 37 at p. 1)
1. Preliminary Analysis Prediction Tool
In support of the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE tested a
sample of RCWs under both appendix J2 and appendix J as proposed in the
September 2021 TP NOPR. As described in chapter 5 of the September 2021
Preliminary TSD, DOE supplemented its tested dataset with ``predicted''
EER and WER values for a larger sample of units. The EER and WER
predictions which were estimated based on each model's measured
performance under appendix J2 and on the model's physical and
operational characteristics. DOE also published an explanation of how
the predictive tool was developed, including a table listing the
impacts to each underlying variable that were assumed as part of the
predictive analysis. DOE explained that it planned to continue testing
additional units to appendix J to increase the number of tested, rather
than predicted, EER and WER values in future stages of the rulemaking.
AHAM commented that DOE did not provide sufficient explanation for
the ``prediction tool'' that DOE used to predict a clothes washer's EER
and WER values based on appendix J2 test results. (AHAM, No. 40 at pp.
4-6) AHAM further explained that its data, which include models
representing approximately half of total 2020 shipments, contradicted
the data presented in the September 2021 Preliminary TSD. (Id.) AHAM
expressed concern that DOE did not provide any statistical outcomes to
justify the accuracy of the prediction tool it used to predict a
clothes washers EER and WER values based on appendix J2 test results.
(AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 15-17) AHAM commented that without data on
statistical outcomes, AHAM cannot assess the accuracy of the prediction
tool. (Id.) AHAM also commented that based on the analysis that
transposes efficiency levels, DOE's prediction tool appears to be
inaccurate and that under the best-fit line method for front-loading
clothes washers, the R-squared values show the prediction tool is
insufficient. (Id.) AHAM therefore recommended that DOE update its
analysis based on tested data instead of predicted data, especially for
top-loading standard clothes washers with capacities less than 3.0
ft\3\, and for front-loading compact clothes washers. (Id.) AHAM also
requested that DOE provide appendix J2 and appendix J test data; the
statistical data demonstrating correlation of the prediction tool; the
data supporting the development of the tool, including the equations
the prediction tool used; and DOE's comparison between predicted and
tested EER where applicable. (Id.) AHAM noted that, unlike DOE, its
data was all based on actual testing instead of using a model or
prediction tool. (Id.)
AHAM presented a table showing the variation in tested
HE<INF>T</INF>, ME<INF>T</INF>, DE<INF>T</INF>, E<INF>TLP</INF>,
Q<INF>T</INF>, and corrected RMC between appendix J2 and appendix J for
the AHAM data, DOE data, and the combined AHAM and DOE dataset. (AHAM,
No. 53 at pp. 7-8) AHAM measured variation by measuring the percent
difference in each metric between appendix J2 and appendix J for all
units, and presented an overall variation in each metric by calculating
the average percent differences for each metric, the standard deviation
of the percent differences for each metric, and the range of percent
differences for each metric. (Id.) AHAM noted that on average, values
for HE<INF>T</INF>, ME<INF>T</INF>, DE<INF>T</INF>, E<INF>TLP</INF>,
Q<INF>T</INF>, and corrected RMC were higher under appendix J than
under appendix J2. (Id.) AHAM also noted that the level of variation
was particularly high for DE<INF>T</INF> and E<INF>TLP</INF>. (Id.)
AHAM commented that, while the overall impact of standby energy in the
final calculation for energy efficiency is quite small, the impact of
dryer energy on the final calculated efficiency is significant. (Id.)
Based on its analysis, AHAM concluded that this variation shows that a
direct translation between the appendix J2 and appendix J test
procedures is not possible. (Id.) AHAM specifically pointed out that
the total dryer energy consumption showed an average increase of 22.5
percent, but that the range of differences with the tested models is
quite wide, indicating that it is impossible to predict the impact of
appendix J on dryer energy consumption. (Id.) AHAM added that the
appendix J2 to appendix J translation has a similar effect on corrected
RMC, and is most apparent with respect to E<INF>TLP</INF>, where
measured values varied by as much as 221 percent. (Id.) AHAM further
explained that the relatively high standard deviations of percent
differences underscore the wide ranges in the measured value
differences between appendix J2 and appendix J. (Id.)
Samsung commented that the prediction tool used in the September
2021 Preliminary TSD does not have a high correlation between EER and
IMEF. (Samsung, No. 41 at p. 3)
ASAP et al. commented that they support DOE's approach to use its
predictive tool and that they support conducting additional testing
using the new proposed appendix J test procedure to refine this
approach. (ASAP et al., No. 37 at p. 1)
Ameren et al. expressed support for DOE's approach to predict EER
and WER values from tested IMEF and IWF value and commented that they
support future testing with appendix J to collect more results with the
proposed new appendix J test procedure. (Ameren et al., No. 42 at pp.
19-20). Ameren et al. added that DOE's RMC and Warm Wash temperature
results are consistent with findings in the 2020 NEEA report. (Id.)
Ameren et al. added that the non-linear nature of the relationship
between IMEF and IWF values and EER and WER values is similar to the
non-linearity that NEEA identified in a translation of appendix J2
tests to real-world energy use. (Id.)
As noted, DOE stated in the September 2021 Preliminary TSD that it
planned to continue testing additional units to appendix J to increase
the number of tested, rather than predicted, EER and WER values for
future stages of this proposed rulemaking.
As described in the April 2022 NODA, DOE has tested additional 28
additional RCW models to both appendix J2 and appendix J in order to
provide additional data points for the translation equations and to
eliminate the need to rely on ``predicted'' EER and WER values in the
translation analysis. 87 FR 21816, 21817. DOE's total test sample
includes 44 units across all five product classes analyzed for this
NOPR. DOE made available detailed appendix J and appendix J2 test data
for its full set of tested units as part of the April 2022 NODA. As
discussed in section IV.C.5 of this document, for this NOPR DOE relied
exclusively on tested data for developing translation equations for
each automatic clothes washer product class and did not continue the
usage of its prediction tool as part of its analysis. The
discontinuation of the prediction tool addresses many of the concerns
expressed by AHAM and Samsung. As detailed in section IV.C.5 of this
document, the comprehensive dataset has enabled DOE to develop robust
translations between the appendix J2 and appendix J metrics.
2. Efficiency Analysis
DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy
efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed
efficiency levels in

[[Page 13545]]

the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach), or (2) determining
the incremental efficiency improvements associated with incorporating
specific design options to a baseline model (i.e., the design-option
approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the efficiency levels
established for the analysis are determined based on the market
distribution of existing products (in other words, based on the range
of efficiencies and efficiency level ``clusters'' that already exist on
the market). Using the design option approach, the efficiency levels
established for the analysis are determined through detailed
engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the efficiency
improvements from implementing specific design options that have been
identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on a
combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-level
approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended using
the design option approach to ``gap fill'' levels (to bridge large gaps
between other identified efficiency levels) and/or to extrapolate to
the max-tech level (particularly in cases where the max-tech level
exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently available on the
market).
For this NOPR, DOE used an efficiency-level approach, supplemented
with the design-option approach for certain ``gap fill'' efficiency
levels. The efficiency-level approach is appropriate for RCWs, given
the availability of certification data to determine the market
distribution of existing products and to identify efficiency level
``clusters'' that already exist on the market.
In conducting the efficiency analysis for the automatic clothes
washer product classes, DOE first identified efficiency levels in terms
of the current IMEF and IWF metrics defined in appendix J2 that are the
most familiar to interested parties. DOE also initially determined the
cost-efficiency relationships based on these metrics. Following that,
DOE translated each efficiency level into its corresponding EER and WER
values using the translation equations developed for each product
class, as discussed further in section IV.C.5 of this document.
For the semi-automatic product class, for which reliable
certification data is unavailable, DOE tested a representative sample
of units to appendix J and used that set of data points to determine
the baseline and higher efficiency levels, as described further in
section IV.C.2.c of this document.
The efficiency levels that DOE considered in the engineering
analysis are attainable using technologies currently available on the
market in RCWs. DOE used the results of the testing and teardown
analyses to determine a representative set of technologies and design
strategies that manufacturers use to achieve each higher efficiency
level. This information provides interested parties with additional
transparency of assumptions and results, and the ability to perform
independent analyses for verification. Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD
describes the methodology and results of the analysis used to derive
the cost-efficiency relationships.
a. Baseline Efficiency Levels
For each product class, DOE generally selects a baseline model as a
reference point for each class, and measures changes resulting from
potential energy conservation standards against the baseline. The
baseline model in each product class represents the characteristics of
a product typical of that class (e.g., capacity, physical size).
Generally, a baseline model is one that just meets current energy
conservation standards, or, if no standards are in place, the baseline
is typically the most common or least efficient unit on the market.
In the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE presented an
initial set of baseline levels for each product class, as shown in
Table IV.3.

Table IV.3--Preliminary Baseline Efficiency Levels Presented in the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum IMEF Maximum IWF (gal/
Product class Source (ft\3\/kWh/cycle) cycle/ft\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-Loading, Compact (<1.6 ft\3\) *........ Current DOE standard......... 1.15 12.0
Top-Loading, Standard-Size (>=1.6 ft\3\)... Current DOE standard......... 1.57 6.5
Front-Loading, Compact (<3.0 ft\3\)........ Current DOE standard for 1.84 4.7
front-loading, standard-size
(>=1.6 ft\3\) **.
Front-Loading, Standard-Size (>=3.0 ft\3\). ENERGY STAR v. 7.0 ***....... 2.38 3.7
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on March 3, 2023.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.