Home/Federal/Federal Register/2023-09969

Proposed Rule2023-09969

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Dishwashers

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

May 19, 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 dishwashers. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE" or "the Department") 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 dishwashers, and requests comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and results.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 97 (Friday, May 19, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 97 (Friday, May 19, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32514-32581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09969]

[[Page 32513]]

Vol. 88

Friday,

No. 97

May 19, 2023

Part III

Department of Energy

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

10 CFR Part 430

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Dishwashers; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 2023 / Proposed
Rules

[[Page 32514]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039]
RIN 1904-AE32

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Dishwashers

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comment.

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

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 dishwashers.
EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'' or ``the
Department'') 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 dishwashers, and requests comment on these
proposed standards and associated analyses and results.

DATES:
Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding
this NOPR no later than July 18, 2023.
Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on June 8,
2023, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. See section VII, ``Public Participation,''
for webinar registration information, participant instructions and
information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
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 June 20, 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-2019-BT-STD-0039. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments,
identified by docket number EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039, by any of the
following methods. Individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, or who
have speech and other communication disabilities may use a relay
service to reach the telephone numbers in this section and farther
below in this document. To learn more about how to make an accessible
telephone call, visit the web page for Federal Communications
Commission at <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/telecommunications-relay-service-trs">https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/telecommunications-relay-service-trs</a>.
(1) Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#eda9badfdddcd4beb9a9ddddded4ad8888c3898288c38a829b">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Include the docket number
EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039 in the subject line of the message.
(2) 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.
(3) 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?D=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039">www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039</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#593c373c2b3e20772a2d38373d382b3d2a192c2a3d3633773e362f">[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 rulemaking.

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#e6a796968a8f87888583b59287888287948295b7938395928f898895a68383c8828983c8818990">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2588. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8acbe7efe6e3eba4dde2e3fee3e4edcae2fba4eee5efa4ede5fc">[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#bafbcacad6d3dbd4d9dfe9cedbd4dedbc8dec9ebcfdfc9ced3d5d4c9fadfdf94ded5df94ddd5cc">[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 Dishwashers
C. Deviation From Appendix A
III. General Discussion
A. General Comments
B. Scope of Coverage
C. Test Procedure
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 and Water Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy and Water Conservation
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
1. Product Classes
2. Technology Options

[[Page 32515]]

B. Screening Analysis
1. Screened-Out Technologies
a. Desiccant Drying
b. Reduced Inlet-Water Temperature
c. Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Washing
d. Ultrasonic Washing
e. Thermoelectric Heat Pumps
f. Water Re-Use System
2. Remaining Technologies
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Efficiency Analysis
a. Baseline Efficiency
b. Higher Efficiency Levels
2. Manufacturer Production Cost Analysis
3. Manufacturer Selling Price
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy and Water Use Analysis
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Product Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy and Water Prices
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
6. Product Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
9. Payback Period Analysis
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
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
b. Shipments Projections
c. Capital and Product Conversion Costs
d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios
3. Manufacturer Interviews
a. Test Procedure and Cleaning Index
b. Balancing Dishwasher Attributes
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
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
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 Dishwashers
Standards
2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. 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 dishwashers, the subject of
this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(6))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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)) Not later than 3 years after issuance of a final determination
not to amend standards, 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)(3)(B))
In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed
in this document, DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards
for dishwashers. The proposed standards shall not exceed the estimated
annual energy use, as expressed in kilowatt hours per year (``kWh/
year''), and water consumption, as expressed in gallons per cycle
(``gal/cycle'') shown in Table I.1. These proposed standards, if
adopted, would apply to all dishwashers listed in Table I.1
manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on the
date 3 years after the publication of the final rule for this
rulemaking.

[[Page 32516]]

Table I.1--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Dishwashers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum estimated Maximum per-cycle
Product class annual energy use * water consumption
(kWh/year) (gal/cycle)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC 1: Standard-Size Dishwasher 223 3.3
PC 2: Compact-Size Dishwasher. 174 3.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Using appendix C2.

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I.2 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the
proposed standards on consumers of dishwashers, as measured by the
average life-cycle cost (``LCC'') savings and the simple payback period
(``PBP'').\3\ The average LCC savings are positive for all product
classes, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of dishwashers,
which is estimated to be 15.2 years (see section IV.F.6 of this
document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ 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 Dishwashers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC savings Simple payback
Product class (2021$) period (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard-Size................. $17 2.4
Compact-Size.................. 30 0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2021
dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The industry net present value (``INPV'') is the sum of the
discounted cash flows to the industry from the NOPR publication year
through the end of the analysis period (2023-2056). Using a real
discount rate of 8.5 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for
manufacturers of dishwashers in the case without amended standards is
$713.6 million. Under the proposed standards, the change in INPV is
estimated to range from -$134.9 million to -$89.5 million, which
represents a change of -18.9 percent to -12.5 percent. To bring
products into compliance with amended standards, it is estimated that
the industry would incur total conversion costs of approximately $125.6
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

DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation
standards for dishwashers would save a significant amount of energy.
Relative to the case without amended standards, the lifetime energy
savings for dishwashers purchased in the 30-year period that begins in
the anticipated year of compliance with the amended standards (2027-
2056) amount to 0.31 quadrillion British thermal units (``Btu''), or
quads.\5\ This represents a savings of 2.7 percent relative to the
energy use of these products in the case without amended standards
(referred to as the ``no-new-standards case'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ 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.2 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cumulative net present value (``NPV'') of total consumer
benefits of the proposed standards for dishwashers ranges from $1.11
billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $2.77 billion (at a 3-percent
discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future
operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product costs for
dishwashers purchased in 2027-2056.
In addition, the proposed standards for dishwashers 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 12.54 million metric tons
(``Mt'') \6\ of carbon dioxide (``CO<INF>2</INF>''), 3.38 thousand tons
of sulfur dioxide (``SO<INF>2</INF>''), 25.15 thousand tons of nitrogen
oxides (``NO<INF>X</INF>''), 112.88 thousand tons of methane
(``CH<INF>4</INF>''), 0.09 thousand tons of nitrous oxide
(``N<INF>2</INF>O''), and 0.02 tons of mercury (``Hg'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for
emissions other than CO<INF>2</INF> are presented in short tons.
\7\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-
standards case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy
Outlook 2022 (``AEO 2022''). AEO 2022 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 AEO 2022 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'').\8\ DOE used interim SC-GHG values developed by an
Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases
(``IWG'').\9\ The derivation of these values is discussed

[[Page 32517]]

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 $0.60 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this
analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical
Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide
Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February
2021 by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases (IWG).
\9\ 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 (``February 2021 SC-GHG TSD'').
<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 $0.35 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $0.94 billion
using a 3-percent discount rate.\10\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ 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 monetized benefits and costs expected to
result from the proposed standards for dishwashers. 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 Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy
Conservation Standards for Dishwashers
[TSL 3]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Billion $2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings........................ 2.92
Climate Benefits *..................................... 0.60
Health Benefits **..................................... 0.94
Total Benefits [dagger]................................ 4.47
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]............ 0.15
Consumer Net Benefits.................................. 2.77
Total Net Benefits..................................... 4.32
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings........................ 1.19
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate).................. 0.60
Health Benefits **..................................... 0.35
Total Benefits [dagger]................................ 2.14
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]............ 0.08
Consumer Net Benefits.................................. 1.11
Total Net Benefits..................................... 2.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with product
name 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.
To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this analysis uses
the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document:
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates
Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the
Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases
(IWG).
** 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.
[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 health benefits
of emission reductions, all annualized.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2022, 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 2022. 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 dishwashers 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 dishwashers 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 V.B.8 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

[[Page 32518]]

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 $8.6 million per year in increased product
costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $125.8 million in
reduced product operating costs, $34.6 million in climate benefits, and
$37.0 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would
amount to $188.8 million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated cost of the proposed standards is $8.5 million per year in
increased product costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $167.8
million in reduced operating costs, $34.6 million in climate benefits,
and $54.3 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit
would amount to $248.1 million per year.

Table I.4--Annualized Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Dishwashers
[TSL 3]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million 2021$/year
--------------------------------------------------------
Primary Low-Net-benefits High-net-benefits
estimate estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings........................ 167.8 166.8 169.5
Climate Benefits *..................................... 34.6 33.8 35.3
Health Benefits **..................................... 54.3 53.1 55.4
Total Benefits [dagger]................................ 256.6 253.7 260.2
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]............ 8.5 9.8 8.2
Net Benefits........................................... 248.1 243.8 251.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings........................ 125.8 125.0 127.0
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate).................. 34.6 33.8 35.3
Health Benefits *...................................... 37.0 36.3 37.7
Total Benefits [dagger]................................ 197.3 195.1 199.9
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]............ 8.6 9.7 8.3
Net Benefits........................................... 188.8 185.3 191.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with dishwashers 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.1 of this document. Note that the Benefits
and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
* 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. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this analysis uses the interim
estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide
Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the Interagency Working Group on
the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG).
** 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 for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
percent discount rate.
[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 the burdens of the proposed
standards.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
health benefits from NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> reduction, and a
3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG
emissions, the estimated cost of the proposed standards for dishwashers
is $8.6 million per year in increased dishwasher costs, while the
estimated annual benefits are $125.8 million in reduced equipment
operating costs, $34.6 million in climate benefits, and $37.0 million
in health benefits. The net benefit amounts to $188.8 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.\12\ 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.

[[Page 32519]]

Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a
case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ 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 0.31 quads full-fuel-
cycle (``FFC''), the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 3.3
million homes. The NPV of consumer benefit for these projected energy
savings is $1.11 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $2.77
billion using a discount rate of 3 percent. The cumulative emissions
reductions associated with these energy savings are 12.56 Mt of
CO<INF>2</INF>, 3.39 thousand tons of SO<INF>2</INF>, 25.20 thousand
tons of NO<INF>X</INF>, 0.02 tons of Hg, 113.10 thousand tons of
CH<INF>4</INF>, and 0.09 thousand tons of N<INF>2</INF>O. The estimated
monetary value of the climate benefit from reduced GHG emissions
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) is
$0.6 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health benefits from
reduced SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions is $0.35 billion
using a 7-percent discount rate and $0.94 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).\13\ 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ See section III.D.2 of this document for further discussion
of how DOE determines whether energy savings are ``significant''
within the context of the statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
benefits of the more-stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh
the projected burdens.
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
dishwashers.

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 dishwashers,
the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(6)) EPCA prescribed
energy conservation standards for these products (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(1)
and 10(A)), and directs DOE to conduct future rulemakings to determine
whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(4) and (10)(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)) Not later than 3 years after issuance of a final
determination not to amend standards, 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)(3)(B))
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal
energy 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 dishwashers appear at
title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 430, subpart
B, appendix C1 (``appendix C1'') and appendix C2 (``appendix C2'').
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered products, including dishwashers. 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 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 manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the
covered products that are likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water)
savings likely to result directly from the standard;

[[Page 32520]]

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered
products likely to result from 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
standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'') considers
relevant.

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
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 dishwashers
address standby mode and off mode energy use. In this rulemaking, DOE
intends to incorporate such energy use into any amended energy
conservation standards that it may adopt.

B. Background

1. Current Standards
In a direct final rule published on May 30, 2012 (``May 2012 Direct
Final Rule''), DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards
for dishwashers manufactured on or after May 30, 2013. 77 FR 31918. In
a final determination published on December 13, 2016 (``December 2016
Final Determination''), DOE concluded that amended energy conservation
standards would not be economically justified at any level above the
standards established in the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, and therefore
determined not to amend the standards. 81 FR 90072. The current energy
and water conservation standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at
10 CFR part 430, Sec. 430.32(f), and are repeated in Table II.1. The
current applicable DOE test procedure for dishwashers appears at
appendix C1.

Table II.1--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Dishwashers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum estimated Maximum per-cycle
Product class annual energy use * water consumption
(kWh/year) (gal/cycle)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard-Size Dishwasher...... 307 5.0
Compact-Size Dishwasher....... 222 3.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Using appendix C1.

The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (``AHAM'') standard
AHAM DW-1-2020 is also referenced in the amendatory text of this
document but has already been approved for Sec. 430.32. No changes are
proposed.
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Dishwashers
The current energy conservation standards for dishwashers were
submitted to DOE by groups representing manufacturers, energy and
environmental advocates, and consumer groups on July 30, 2010. This
collective set of comments, titled ``Agreement on Minimum Federal
Efficiency Standards, Smart Appliances, Federal Incentives and Related
Matters for Specified Appliances'' (the ``Joint Petition''),\14\
recommended specific energy conservation standards for dishwashers
that, in the commenters' view, would satisfy the EPCA requirements. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)) DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of multiple
standard levels for residential dishwashers, including a standard level
that corresponded to the recommended levels in the Joint Petition. 77
FR 31945, 31945-6. In the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE established
energy conservation standards for dishwashers manufactured on or after
May 30, 2013, consistent with the levels suggested in the Joint
Petition. 77 FR 31918.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ DOE Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0060-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the December 2016 Final Determination, DOE concluded that
amended energy conservation standards would not be economically
justified at that time at any level above the standards established in
the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, and therefore determined not to amend
the standards. 81 FR 90072.

[[Page 32521]]

On March 21, 2018, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (``CEI'')
submitted a petition for rulemaking requesting that DOE establish a new
product class for dishwashers with a cycle time of less than one hour.
DOE granted the petition and proposed a new product class for
dishwashers with a ``normal'' cycle time of 60 minutes or less. 84 FR
33869 (July 16, 2019). On October 30, 2020, DOE published a final rule
establishing a separate product class for standard-size dishwashers
with a cycle time for the ``normal'' cycle of 60 minutes or less from
washing through drying (``short cycle dishwashers''). 85 FR 68723
(``October 2020 Final Rule'').
Subsequently, in a final rule published on January 19, 2022, DOE
revoked the final rule that established the new product class for
dishwashers as it was improperly promulgated. 87 FR 2673.
EPCA requires that, not later than 3 years after the issuance of a
final determination not to amend standards, 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)(3)(B)) DOE must make the analysis on which a determination is
based publicly available and provide an opportunity for written
comment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(2))
DOE is examining whether to amend the current standards pursuant to
its obligations under EPCA. In an early assessment request for
information published on October 14, 2020 (``October 2020 RFI''), DOE
initiated the current rulemaking with an early assessment review to
determine whether any new or amended standards would satisfy the
relevant requirements of EPCA for a new or amended energy conservation
standard for dishwashers. 85 FR 64981.
Subsequently, on January 24, 2022, DOE published a notification of
a webinar and availability of preliminary technical support document
(``January 2022 Preliminary Analysis''). 87 FR 3450. In that
notification, DOE sought comment on the analytical framework, models,
and tools that DOE used to evaluate potential standards for
dishwashers, the results of preliminary analyses performed, and the
potential energy and water conservation standard levels derived from
these analyses, which DOE presented in the accompanying preliminary TSD
(``January 2022 Preliminary TSD'').\15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ January 2022 Dishwashers Energy Conservation Standards
Preliminary Technical Support Document. Available online at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039-0015">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039-0015</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prior to the publication of the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis,
DOE published proposed amendments to the dishwashers test procedure at
appendix C1 and proposed a new appendix C2 in a test procedure NOPR
published on December 22, 2021 (``December 2021 TP NOPR''). 86 FR
72738. On January 18, 2023, DOE published the final test procedure
rulemaking (``January 2023 TP Final Rule'') amending appendix C1 and
establishing a new appendix C2. 88 FR 3234.The new appendix C2
specifies updated annual cycles and low-power mode hours, both of which
are used to calculate the estimated annual energy use (``EAEU'')
metric, and introduces a cleaning performance threshold requirement.
DOE held a public meeting on February 22, 2022 (``January 2022
Preliminary Analysis webinar''), to solicit feedback from stakeholders
concerning the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis, and received comments
in response from the interested parties listed in Table II.2.

Table II.2--January 2022 Preliminary Analysis Written Comments for Dishwashers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment No. in the
Commenter(s) Abbreviation docket Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Westview and Global Guideway......... Westview and Global 17..................... Individual.
Guideway.
Whirlpool Corporation................ Whirlpool.............. 21..................... Manufacturer.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc..... Samsung................ 22..................... Manufacturer.
Appliance Standards Awareness Joint Commenters....... 23..................... Efficiency Advocates.
Project, American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy, Consumer
Federation of America, Natural
Resources Defense Council.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. NEEA................... 24..................... Efficiency Advocates.
GE Appliances, a Haier Company....... GEA.................... 25..................... Manufacturer.
Association of Home Appliance AHAM................... \16\ 26, 31............ Trade Association.
Manufacturers.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San CA IOUs................ 27..................... Utilities.
Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern
California Edison (collectively, the
California Investor Owned Utilities).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\17\
To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments
that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided
during the February 22, 2022, public meeting, DOE cites the written
comments throughout this final rule. Any oral comments provided during
the webinar that are not substantively addressed by written comments
are summarized and cited separately throughout this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ AHAM's supplemental comment (No. 31) was received 161 days
after the comment submission deadline. DOE generally will not
consider late filed comments, but may exercise its discretion to do
so where necessary and appropriate. In this case, DOE is considering
AHAM's comment because its tardiness has not disrupted DOE's
consideration of this matter and because the comment regards a
subject important to this matter.
\17\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
energy conservation standards for dishwashers. (Docket No. EERE-
2019-BT-STD-0039, 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Deviation From Appendix A

The timing of DOE's test procedures and energy conservation
standards rulemakings are 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''). Section 6(f)(2) of
appendix A provides that the length of the public comment period for

[[Page 32522]]

a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend an energy conservation
standard will be at least 75 days. In accordance with section 3(a) of
appendix A, DOE notes that it is deviating from the provision in
appendix A regarding the pre- stages for an energy conservation
standards rulemaking. DOE faces an overdue statutory deadline for this
rulemaking and, furthermore, the analytical methods used for this NOPR
are similar to those used in previous rulemaking notices. Consequently,
DOE has determined it is necessary and appropriate to provide a 60-day
comment period, which the Department has determined provides sufficient
time for interested parties to review the NOPR and develop comments and
for DOE to complete its analyses prior to the publication of the final
rule by June 30, 2024, as required by a consent decree.

III. General Discussion

DOE developed this proposal after considering oral and written
comments, data, and information submitted by stakeholders. 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 noted that DOE's comment period on the January 2022
Preliminary Analysis overlapped with the December 2021 TP NOPR comment
period by 30 days. (AHAM, No. 26 at p. 28) AHAM commented that DOE
should have received and considered stakeholder comments on the
December 2021 TP NOPR, which proposed a significant change (i.e., a
cleaning index threshold as a condition for a valid test cycle), before
proceeding with the energy conservation standard itself, including the
January 2022 Preliminary Analysis. (Id.) AHAM commented that it
supported DOE's interest in moving rulemakings forward, but to provide
stakeholders with a real opportunity to evaluate proposals, DOE should
have released the test procedure proposal for comment before conducting
its preliminary analysis. (AHAM, No. 26 at p. 28)
AHAM commented that, regardless of the desire to rectify missed
deadlines, DOE must ensure that its process allows early stakeholder
engagement and that it meets other statutory criteria, such as ensuring
that the standard is technically feasible and economically justified.
(AHAM, No. 26 at pp. 28-29) AHAM commented that the process DOE had
chosen for the dishwashers test procedure and standards rulemakings
significantly undercuts commenters' ability to provide critical, early
feedback to DOE on both the proposed test procedure and the preliminary
analysis. (AHAM, No. 26 at p. 28) AHAM commented that DOE's proposed
dishwasher test procedure amendments would alter measured efficiency in
many cases, that DOE did not fully analyze the impact of the December
2021 TP NOPR amendments on the standards rulemaking, and that DOE's
process does not allow commenters sufficient time to analyze the
implications. (Id.)
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. The procedures at appendix A
inherently recognize a certain amount of overlap between test procedure
and energy conservation standards rulemakings. In particular, appendix
A 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 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 appendix A 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
issued the January 2023 TP Final Rule on December 16, 2022. The comment
period for this standards NOPR will end more than 180 days after the
issuance of the January 2023 TP Final Rule, in accordance with the
requirements of appendix A.
As acknowledged by AHAM, DOE is conducting this rulemaking in
fulfillment of its statutory obligations under EPCA. Furthermore, DOE
expects to publicly post the intended final rule for this rulemaking by
June 30, 2024, in fulfillment of the terms of a consent decree,\18\
which necessitates timely issuance of this NOPR. DOE recognizes and
appreciates the information and data provided by stakeholders in
response to the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis. As discussed
throughout this NOPR, DOE has incorporated data and other information
received during the prior rulemaking stages into the analyses conducted
for this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ On October 30, 2020, Natural Resources Defense Council,
Center for Biological Diversity, Consumer Federation of America,
Massachusetts Union of Public Housing, and Sierra Club filed a
lawsuit against DOE and the Secretary alleging that DOE failed to
complete rulemakings by statutory deadlines for 25 consumer products
and commercial equipment, including dishwashers. See Natural
Resources Defense Council, et al. v. Granholm, et al., No. 1:20-cv-
09127 (S.D.N.Y.) On November 9, 2020, the States of New York,
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland,
Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, the People of the State of Michigan, the District
of Columbia, and the City of New York filed a similar complaint,
amended on January 29, 2021 to include the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and the States of New Mexico and Nevada. See State of
New York, et al. v. Granholm, et al., No. 1:20-cv-09362 (S.D.N.Y.)
Under the terms of a negotiated consent decree to settle these
lawsuits, entered on September 20, 2022, DOE is required, in part,
to publicly post the intended final rule for dishwasher standards by
June 30, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AHAM commented that DOE's test procedure proposal and preliminary
analysis are missing key data and the data which are included are not
transparent, which fails to meet EPCA, the Administrative Procedure
Act, and the Data Quality Act requirements. (AHAM, No. 26 at p. 28)
DOE understands AHAM's above comment to be discussing the cleaning
performance requirement in the January 2023 TP Final Rule. As noted in
the January 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE discussed in the December 2021 TP
NOPR its justification for including a cleaning performance measurement
and establishing a minimum cleaning index threshold to define what
constitutes completely washing a full load of normally soiled dishes.
88 FR 3234. The December 2021 TP NOPR presented details of a rigorous
analysis performed by DOE, building upon a comprehensive investigation
and analysis of dishwasher cleaning performance conducted by DOE over
the course of the development of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (``EPA's'') ENERGY STAR Cleaning Performance Test Method \19\
and previous dishwasher energy conservation standards rulemakings, and
using the best available data of which it was aware at the time of the
December 2021 TP NOPR to tentatively determine the specific cleaning
index threshold that aligns with consumer expectations for completely
washing a

[[Page 32523]]

full load of normally soiled dishes. 86 FR 72738, 72756-72759. DOE
reiterated its results and analysis, and included additional resources,
when it presented the final cleaning index threshold in newly
established appendix C2 in the January 2023 TP Final Rule. 88 FR 3234.
Similarly, in the January 2022 Preliminary TSD, DOE presented test
results pertaining to energy use, water use, and cleaning performance
by soil level (i.e., heavy, medium, or light soil load) and efficiency
level as determined by the rated energy and water use. See chapter 5,
section 5.5.1 of the January 2022 Preliminary TSD. These aggregated
data informed DOE's preliminary analysis and formed the basis for the
efficiency levels presented in the January 2022 Preliminary TSD.
Additionally, DOE released test data, including model name and numbers,
to individual manufacturers that requested this information for their
own models that were tested. These data were released under a non-
disclosure agreement (``NDA'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ Available at <a href="http://www.energystar.gov/products/spec/residential_dishwashers_specification_pd">www.energystar.gov/products/spec/residential_dishwashers_specification_pd</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AHAM commented that dishwashers are an energy efficiency success
story and that AHAM, DOE, EPA, and other interested parties should work
to promote dishwasher ownership and proper use as the next step towards
energy and water savings. (AHAM, No. 26 at pp. 1-2) AHAM suggested that
non-regulatory options, such as government-industry partnerships, can
significantly contribute to achieving the President's climate goals via
non-regulatory programs to promote ownership and effective use of
dishwashers, especially for low-income consumers. (AHAM, No. 26 at pp.
2-3) AHAM commented that DOE should amend standards to EL 1, but
without the cleaning performance metric that was proposed in the
December 2021 TP NOPR, and focus any additional resources on developing
non-regulatory programs that will increase dishwasher ownership and
proper use of dishwashers. (AHAM, No. 26 at pp. 3-4) AHAM commented
that increasing dishwasher ownership and proper use of dishwashers has
the potential to drive significant energy and water savings compared to
savings attributable to amended standards. (AHAM, No. 26 at p. 16) AHAM
commented that from an environmental perspective, the preferred
consumer behavior from most preferred to least preferred is: no pre-
rinsing and running full or partial loads in a dishwasher; pre-rinsing
and running full or partial loads in a dishwasher; and, complete hand
washing. AHAM commented that hand washing and pre-rinsing consumes
substantially more water than running a dishwasher with partial loads
even twice as often (i.e., every day rather than an average of 185
loads per year). (Id.)
Whirlpool supported AHAM's recommendation to explore non-regulatory
options to promote broader dishwasher ownership and optimal usage.
(Whirlpool, No. 21 at p. 2) Whirlpool commented that DOE's efforts to
further improve energy and water savings should focus on non-regulatory
options. (Whirlpool, No. 21 at p. 6)
GEA also supported AHAM's comment proposing a partnership between
DOE, EPA, industry, and energy efficiency advocates to encourage non-
regulatory options to further improve energy and water savings. (GEA,
No. 25 at p. 2)
DOE acknowledges that non-regulatory options may exist to promote
dishwasher ownership and proper use to further push the potential for
energy and water savings. However, under EPCA, DOE is statutorily
required to conduct energy conservation standards rulemaking for
dishwashers to determine whether amending the current standards would
achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency and are
technologically feasible and economically justified.\20\ (42 U.S.C.
6295(g), (m), and (o)) Since DOE published the December 2016 Final
Determination not to amend dishwasher standards, it has initiated this
current process to evaluate whether amended standards are economically
justified and technologically feasible, warranting a NOPR or a
determination that standards for dishwashers do not need to be amended.
As discussed throughout this document, unlike the 2016 Final
Determination, DOE has preliminarily determined that amended standards
are economically justified, technologically feasible, and would result
in significant energy savings. The vast majority, 93 percent, of the
market currently meets or exceeds the ENERGY STAR V. 6.0 \21\ level,
which corresponds to EL 1 in this document, compared to only 62 percent
of the market that met or exceeded that level \22\ in the December 2016
Final Determination. Further, as discussed in section IV.C.2 of this
document, the anticipated requirement to increase dishwasher efficiency
from EL 1 to EL 2 is estimated to be a zero-cost improvement in control
strategies. Accordingly, DOE is proposing amended energy conservation
standards for dishwashers in this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ DOE conducts an energy conservation standard every 3 to 6
years depending on whether DOE issued a determination not to amend
standards or DOE amended standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)).
\21\ ENERGY STAR Program Requirements. Product Specification for
Residential Dishwashers. Eligibility Criteria. Version 6.0.
Effective date: January 29, 2016.
\22\ In the December 2016 Final Determination, EL 2 corresponded
to the ENERGY STAR V. 6.0 level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to results shown in the preliminary analysis, Whirlpool
and GEA noted the estimates of consumers experiencing net costs of
greater than 40 percent for both product classes analyzed beyond EL 1.
(Whirlpool, No. 21 at p. 3; GEA, No. 25 at p. 2)
DOE updated its preliminary analysis for this NOPR. Between
publication of the preliminary analysis and this NOPR some of the
inputs into DOE's analysis have changed, greatly reducing the
percentage of customers experiencing net costs. DOE uses the most
currently available information at each stage of an energy conservation
standards rulemaking. Updates in the NOPR analysis, compared to the
preliminary analysis, include changes to the consumer sample, energy
prices, discount rate, product costs at each efficiency level and
market shares for the product classes (see sections IV.D and IV.F.8 of
this document), which in turn update the net costs experienced by
consumers as estimated in the LCC analysis (see Table V.2 through Table
V.5). DOE's proposed standards are based on the updated analysis, as
described in section V of this document.

B. Scope of Coverage

This NOPR covers those consumer products that meet the definition
of ``dishwasher'' as codified at 10 CFR 430.2.
Dishwasher means a cabinet-like appliance which with the aid of
water and detergent, washes, rinses, and dries (when a drying process
is included) dishware, glassware, eating utensils, and most cooking
utensils by chemical, mechanical and/or electrical means and discharges
to the plumbing drainage system. 10 CFR 430.2.
See section IV.A.1 of this document for discussion of the product
classes analyzed in this NOPR.

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 dishwashers are expressed in
terms of EAEU, in kWh/year, and water consumption, in gal/cycle, as

[[Page 32524]]

measured using appendix C1. (See 10 CFR 430.32(f).)
As discussed, on January 18, 2023, DOE published a final rule
amending the dishwashers test procedure at appendix C1 and adopting a
new test procedure at appendix C2. 88 FR 3234. The amendments to
appendix C1 establish requirements for water hardness, relative
humidity, and loading pattern; update requirements for ambient
temperature, detergent dosage, and standby power measurement; and
include testing approaches from published waivers for dishwashers. Id.
The new appendix C2 additionally includes updated annual number of
cycles and low-power mode hours for the calculation of energy
consumption, as well as provisions for a minimum cleaning index
threshold of 70 to validate the selected test cycle. Id. Cleaning index
is calculated based on the number and size of particles remaining on
each item of the test load at the completion of a dishwasher cycle as
specified in AHAM DW-2-2020.\23\ Items that do not have any soil
particles are scored 0 (i.e., completely clean). No single item in the
test load can exceed a score of 9. Individual scores for each item in
the test load are combined as a weighted average to calculate the per
cycle cleaning index. A cleaning index of 100 indicates completely
clean test load. In the final rule, DOE specified that the cleaning
index is calculated by only scoring soil particles on all items in the
test load and that spots, streaks, and rack contact marks on glassware
are not included in the cleaning index calculation.\24\ 88 FR 3234. The
new appendix C2 will go into effect only at such time as compliance is
required with any amended energy conservation standards. Accordingly,
DOE used appendix C2 as finalized in the January 2023 TP Final Rule as
the basis for the analysis in this NOPR. Specifically, in this NOPR,
DOE's EAEU analysis is based on 184 cycles/year as specified in
appendix C2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ Household Electric Dishwashers. AHAM DW-2-2020. Copyright
2020.
\24\ In the December 2021 TP NOPR, DOE proposed a cleaning index
threshold of 65 calculated by scoring soil particles on all items as
well as spots, streaks, and rack contact marks on glassware. In the
January 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE noted that the specified cleaning
index threshold of 70 is equivalent to the cleaning index threshold
of 65 that was proposed in the December 2021 TP NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis, Whirlpool
commented that DOE had not shown that any cleaning index score
correlates strongly to high consumer satisfaction or prevents consumers
from performing more energy- and water-intensive behaviors. Whirlpool
further cited its comments on the December 2021 TP NOPR regarding the
relationship between the cleaning index as calculated using AHAM DW-2-
2020 and real world consumer satisfaction.\25\ (Whirlpool, No. 21 at p.
4) GEA stated that DOE lacked data on the reproducibility and
repeatability of the proposed cleaning performance metric, as well as
data that indicate the cleaning index threshold is relevant to DOE's
stated goal. (GEA, No. 25 at p. 2) GEA also stated that a requirement
to test the most energy-intensive cycle as a result of failing DOE's
cleaning metric is effectively a change to the standard. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ This comment was addressed by DOE in the January 2023 TP
Final Rule, as such, DOE is not responding to this comment here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AHAM stated it had concerns with DOE's cleaning performance metric,
claiming that (1) EPCA does not authorize a cleaning performance metric
in the test procedure; (2) DOE had failed to support its proposal with
data; and (3) the December 2021 TP NOPR proposal was fraught with
technical challenges and uncertainty. (AHAM, No. 26 at p. 12) \26\ AHAM
further commented that DOE had not proven that the December 2021 TP
NOPR proposal to include a minimum cleaning index threshold of 65 as a
condition for a test cycle to be valid will protect product performance
in the event of increased standards. (AHAM, No. 26 at p. 11) AHAM
commented that DOE's data were not transparent and DOE provided only
summary information in graphs, which did not allow commenters to fully
analyze the data and understand the relationship between cleaning
indices and energy and water usage. (AHAM, No. 26 at pp. 12, 29) AHAM
requested that DOE provide its full data set to facilitate complete
evaluation by commenters. AHAM noted that failure to provide this data
would be inconsistent with the requirements under the Data Quality Act
and other applicable statutory provisions. AHAM requested that, if DOE
provides its full data, it do so in a format that permits public
comment for at least 60 days on both the December 2021 TP NOPR and the
January 2022 Preliminary Analysis. (AHAM, No. 26 at p. 14) AHAM
requested that DOE provide its full test data by model via a notice of
data availability or other appropriate regulatory tool. AHAM requested
that the data include, at a minimum, for each soil level, the following
information: machine energy (in watt-hours (``Wh'')), water energy (in
Wh), power dry energy (in Wh), total cycle energy (in Wh), annual
energy (in kWh), water use (in gal), per-cycle cleaning index, and
water energy during rinse (in Wh). AHAM also requested DOE to share the
model numbers because it would help AHAM and its members determine
representativeness of the sample. (AHAH, No. 26 at pp. 29-30) AHAM
commented that it could not support DOE's test procedure proposal to
include a performance metric in the test procedure without DOE
providing data and information to address the significant concerns AHAM
raised in its comments on the December 2021 TP NOPR. (AHAM, No. 26 at
p. 12) AHAM also commented that the impact of a test procedure
amendment to include cleaning performance would be additional
manufacturer cost and redesign to comply with future amended standards,
and DOE's analysis should account for these costs. (AHAM, No. 26 at p.
29)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ DOE has addressed AHAM's bulleted comments in the January
2023 TP Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The CA IOUs stated their support for the adoption of a cleaning
index threshold to ensure dishwashers adequately clean dishes per
consumer expectations while improving energy and water efficiency. The
CA IOUs commented that greater satisfaction in dishwasher performance
will increase the use and adoption of more-efficient dishwashers,
resulting in a virtuous cycle that leads to even more significant real-
world savings due to a reduction in pre-washing and pre-rinsing. (CA
IOUs, No. 27 at p. 4) Samsung stated that it supports the cleaning
index threshold of 65 as proposed in the December 2021 TP NOPR to
incentivize adequate cleaning efficiency. (Samsung, No. 22 at p. 3)
Samsung provided further comment acknowledging variability in the
cleaning performance test method, but that variability could be
compensated by adjusting the minimum threshold level using the observed
standard deviation. (Samsung, No. 22 at p. 4)
DOE has responded to all of these comments in the January 2023 TP
Final Rule when establishing the cleaning index threshold of 70 as a
condition for a valid test cycle in new appendix C2. The December 2021
TP NOPR, stakeholder comments, January 2023 TP Final Rule, and
supporting material are available on the docket at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2016-BT-TP-0012">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2016-BT-TP-0012</a>.

D. Technological Feasibility

1. General
In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a
screening

[[Page 32525]]

analysis based on information gathered on all current technology
options and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the
products or product 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 appendix A.
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 appendix A. Section IV.B of
this document discusses the results of the screening analysis for
dishwashers, 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
dishwashers, 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 document and in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
For each trial standard level (``TSL''), DOE projected energy
savings from application of the TSL to dishwashers purchased in the 30-
year period that begins in the year of compliance with the proposed
standards (2027-2056).\27\ The savings are measured over the entire
lifetime of dishwashers purchased in the 30-year period. DOE quantified
the energy savings 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ 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
dishwashers. 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. 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.\28\
DOE's approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for
each of the energy types used by covered products or product. For more
information on FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.2 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ 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.\29\ 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. 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
of this document, DOE is proposing to adopt TSL 3, which would save an
estimated 0.31 quads of energy (FFC) and 0.24 trillion gallons of
water. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 NOPR.
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

[[Page 32526]]

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 and Water Savings
Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory
requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result
directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As
discussed in section III.D 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 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 and Water 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 GHGs associated with energy production and use. As part
of the analysis of the need for national energy and water conservation,
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 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 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

[[Page 32527]]

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 document.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this
rulemaking regarding dishwashers. 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.
Additionally, this second spreadsheet 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?D=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039">www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039</a>.
Additionally, DOE used output from the latest version of the Energy
Information Administration's (``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 trends, and (6) technologies or design options
that could improve the energy efficiency of dishwashers. 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 such factors 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
the following two product classes of dishwashers (10 CFR 430.32(f)):
(1) Standard-size dishwashers (capacity equal to or greater than
eight place settings plus six serving pieces); and
(2) Compact-size dishwashers (capacity less than eight place
settings plus six serving pieces).
For these two classes of dishwashers, DOE's current test procedure
measures the energy consumption in terms of EAEU, in kWh/year, and
water consumption, in gal/cycle (see 10 CFR 430.32(f)).
As part of its rulemaking process, DOE considers, among other
things, whether changes to the current product classes are warranted
under the criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). In surveying the dishwasher
market, DOE determined that, in addition to a ``normal'' cycle, many
dishwasher models offer a variety of other cycles, e.g., delicate
cycles, eco wash cycles, heavy soil cycles, pots and pans cycles, and
quick or short cycles. In order to establish a separate product class
for dishwasher models that offer any of these other cycles, DOE would
have to determine that: (1) the other cycle is a performance-related
feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have;
and (2) such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q)(1)(B)) In making the latter determination, DOE considers such
factors as the utility to the consumer of such a feature, and such
other factors as the Department determines appropriate. Id.
With respect to the first criterion for establishing product
classes, DOE has preliminarily determined that these other cycles may
constitute performance-related features. For example, in 2020, DOE
analyzed he average ``normal'' and ``quick'' cycle times for 31
dishwasher models. The average cycle time for a ``normal'' cycle was
131.1 minutes, while the average ``quick'' cycle time was 75.5
minutes.\30\ DOE recognizes that ``quick'' cycle options, which are on
average approximately an hour shorter than a ``normal'' cycle, allow
consumers access to clean dishes in an expedited manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ The test results for the 31 units are available at:
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2018-BT-STD-0005-3213">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2018-BT-STD-0005-3213</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, with respect to the second criterion for establishing
product classes, DOE tentatively concludes that there is not a
correlation between any of these additional cycles and energy and water
use as measured by the DOE test procedure. In other words, DOE does not
find a justification for setting a lower or higher standard for
dishwasher models that offer any of these other cycles because only the
``normal'' cycle is tested pursuant to the DOE test procedure for
compliance with the applicable standard. The current and proposed
standards impose restrictions on energy or water use only when a
dishwasher is operating in its ``normal'' cycle. Thus, there is no
justification or need to establish separate product classes for
dishwashers with these other cycles.
As a result, in this NOPR, DOE proposes to maintain the existing
standard-size and compact-size product classes for dishwashers.
DOE requests comment on its preliminary determination to maintain
the current product classes for dishwashers.
2. Technology Options
In the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE identified 19
technology options that would be expected to improve the efficiency of
dishwashers, as measured by the DOE test procedure:

[[Page 32528]]

condensation drying; control strategies; \31\ desiccant drying; fan/jet
drying; flow-through heating; improved fill control; improved food
filter; improved motor efficiency; improved spray-arm geometry;
increased insulation; low-standby-loss electronic controls;
microprocessor controls and fuzzy logic, including adaptive or soil-
sensing controls; modified sump geometry, with and without dual pumps;
reduced inlet-water temperature; supercritical carbon dioxide washing;
thermoelectric heat pumps; ultrasonic washing; variable washing
pressures and flow rates; and, water re-use system. See chapter 3,
section 3.14.2 of the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ Control strategies refers to how manufacturers program the
microprocessor to control a dishwasher to limit the amount of water
used, or to reduce the set-point temperature of the wash or rinse
water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE requested feedback on
whether there are additional technologies available that may improve
dishwasher performance. See chapter ES, section ES.4.3 of the January
2022 Preliminary Analysis.
Westview and Global Guideway commented that use of grey water and
``back side heat recovery'' design ideas from solar panels could be
used to improve whole-home efficiency. (Westview and Global Guideway,
No. 17 at p. 1) While DOE appreciates the comment, DOE notes that it
identifies technology options that would improve the efficiency of the
covered product itself, and typically, the technology exists as part of
the product's design. Accordingly, DOE has not considered this
technology option in this document.
Samsung commented that opportunities for improved energy efficiency
beyond EL 1 exist, such as implementation of variable-speed motors.
(Samsung, No. 22 at p. 2) DOE agrees and, as discussed in Chapter 5 of
the January 2022 Preliminary TSD and this NOPR TSD, DOE implemented a
3-phase variable-speed motor design option at EL 3. Such a motor, along
with more sophisticated electronic controls, allows the dishwasher to
adjust the flow rate at which the water is pumped throughout the water
system at different times during the cycle. Using the most energy-
intensive pump operation only when needed eliminates excess energy
consumption for portions of the wash cycle requiring less aggressive
circulation.
AHAM commented that DOE should not be able to claim more efficient
motors as a design option in this end-use product rulemaking and claim
separate savings in a potential future motors standards rulemaking for
those same motors. AHAM stated that if DOE regulates special and
definite purpose motors in spite of AHAM's objection, then DOE must
remove the savings from motors from amended standards for dishwashers.
(AHAM, No. 26 at p. 15) DOE acknowledges AHAM's comment, but notes that
the drain and sump motors analyzed for this rulemaking are currently
not subject to motor standards.
The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to reconsider its assumption that all
dishwasher models above the baseline have the same standby power levels
and recognize the potential for advanced electronics and power supplies
to lower standby power. The CA IOUs commented that more advanced
electronics and power supplies may translate to energy savings
significantly greater than those calculated by DOE. (CA IOUs, No. 27 at
p. 4) DOE used the efficiency-level approach to conduct its efficiency
analysis for the engineering analysis, and identified the most likely
design pathways to achieve the analyzed levels. DOE did not analyze
incremental improvements to electronic controls because it implemented
the improved electronic controls design option at EL 1.
DOE requests comment on specific technology options for reducing
standby power, including the type of technologies implemented and the
estimated improvement in standby power.
In this NOPR, DOE considered the same technology options as those
considered in the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis. Additionally, DOE
proposes to explicitly discuss variable-speed motors as a technology
option in the market and technology assessment, since DOE included it
in its design options for EL 3 and higher in the engineering analysis
for the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis as well as the December 2016
Final Determination. Chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD includes the detailed
descriptions of each technology option.

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 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.
Sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b) of appendix A.
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 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
The following sections detail the technology options that were
screened out for this proposed rulemaking, and the reasons why they
were eliminated.
a. Desiccant Drying
Desiccant drying relies on a material such as zeolite \32\ to
adsorb moisture to aid in the drying process and reduce drying energy
consumption. In the January 2022 Preliminary TSD, DOE noted that it is
aware of dishwashers

[[Page 32529]]

from one manufacturer on the market in the United States that use
desiccant drying. See chapter 4, section 4.2.1.1 of the January 2022
Preliminary TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ Zeolite is a highly porous aluminosilicate mineral that
adsorbs moisture and releases heat to aid in the drying process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE has screened out desiccant drying from further consideration
because it would not be practicable to manufacture on the scale
necessary for the dishwasher market. Desiccant drying is a patented
technology, and although multiple manufacturers hold patents for
dishwasher designs with desiccant drying features, DOE is concerned
that this technology option is not available for all manufacturers.
b. Reduced Inlet-Water Temperature
Reduced inlet-water temperature requires that dishwashers tap the
cold water line for their water supply. Because most dishwashers in the
United States tap the hot water line, this technology option would
require significant alteration of existing dishwasher installations in
order to accommodate newly purchased units incorporating this
technology option. Therefore, DOE believes that it would not be
practicable to install this technology on the scale necessary to serve
the relevant market at the time of the effective date of an amended
standard.
c. Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Washing
Supercritical carbon dioxide washing, which uses supercritical
carbon dioxide instead of conventional detergent and water to wash
dishes, is currently being researched. Given that this technology is in
the research stage, DOE believes that it would not be practicable to
manufacture, install and service this technology on the scale necessary
to serve the relevant market at the time of the effective date of an
amended standard. Furthermore, because this technology is in the
research stage, it is not yet possible to assess whether it would have
any adverse impacts on equipment utility to consumers or equipment
availability, or any adverse impacts on consumers' health or safety.
d. Ultrasonic Washing
A dishwasher using ultrasonic waves to generate a cleaning mist was
produced for the Japanese market in 2002; however, this model is no
longer available on the market. Available information indicates that
the use of a mist with ion generation instead of water with detergent
would decrease cleaning performance, impacting consumer utility.
Ultrasonic dishwashing based upon soiled-dish immersion in a fluid
that is then excited by ultrasonic waves has not been demonstrated. In
an immersion-based ultrasonic dishwasher, standing ultrasonic waves
within the washing cavity and the force of bubble cavitation implosion
can damage fragile dishware. Because no manufacturers currently produce
ultrasonic consumer dishwashers, it is impossible to assess whether
this technology option would have any impacts on consumers' health or
safety, or product availability.
Based on this information, DOE has screened out both identified
product types that incorporate the ultrasonic washing technology
option.
e. Thermoelectric Heat Pumps
The thermoelectric heat pump system aims to extract waste heat from
drain water and recover heat normally lost during the drying process,
and apply it to the washing, rinsing, and drying phases, effectively
saving energy. The technology is not commercially available yet as
research and development is still underway. Therefore, DOE believes
that it would not be practicable to manufacture, install and service
this technology on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at
the time of the effective date of an amended standard. Furthermore,
because this technology is in the research stage, it is not yet
possible to assess whether it would have any adverse impacts on
equipment utility to consumers or equipment availability, or any
adverse impacts on consumers' health or safety.
f. Water Re-Use System
This system saves water from the final rinse of a given dishwasher
cycle for use in a subsequent dishwasher cycle. A water re-use system
dishwasher also performs ``drain out'' and ``clean out'' cycles if the
dishwasher is not operated for a certain period of time. Both ``drain
out'' and ``clean out'' events consume additional water and energy
during the subsequent cycle, even though such a system saves water and
energy consumption overall.
DOE has screened out this technology option as it believes that
leaking and contamination from a water holding tank could potentially
present negative health or safety impacts.
2. Remaining Technologies
Through a review of each technology, DOE tentatively concludes that
all of the other identified technologies listed in section IV.A.2 of
this document, including variable-speed motors, met all five screening
criteria to be examined further as design options in DOE's NOPR
analysis. In summary, DOE did not screen out the following technology
options: condensation drying; control strategies; fan/jet drying; flow-
through heating; improved fill control; improved food filter; improved
motor efficiency; variable-speed motors; improved spray-arm geometry;
increased insulation; low-standby-loss electronic controls;
microprocessor controls and fuzzy logic, including adaptive or soil-
sensing controls; modified sump geometry, with and without dual pumps;
and, variable washing pressures and flow rates.
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., are practicable to manufacture, install, and
service; do not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, product
availability, health, or safety; and are not 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 dishwashers. 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
dishwashers, 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).
1. 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 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

[[Page 32530]]

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 analysis, DOE used a combination of these engineering
approaches. This approach involved physically disassembling
commercially available products, reviewing publicly available cost
information, and modeling equipment cost. From this information, DOE
estimated the manufacturer production costs (``MPCs'') for a range of
products currently available on the market. DOE then considered the
incremental steps manufacturers may take to reach higher efficiency
levels. In its modeling, DOE started with the baseline MPC and added
the expected design options at each higher efficiency level to estimate
incremental MPCs. By doing this, the engineering analysis did not
factor in the additional higher-cost features with no impact on
efficiency that are included in some models. However, at efficiency
levels where the product designs significantly deviated from the
baseline product, DOE used the efficiency-level approach to determine
an MPC estimate, while removing the costs associated with non-
efficiency-related components or features. DOE also provides further
discussion on the design options and efficiency improvements in chapter
5 of the NOPR TSD.
a. Baseline Efficiency
For each product/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.
For dishwashers, DOE identified products available on the market
rated at the current energy conservation standards levels for both
standard-size and compact-size dishwasher product classes. Accordingly,
DOE analyzed these products as baseline units. DOE uses the baseline
unit for comparison in several phases of the NOPR analyses, including
the engineering analysis, LCC analysis, PBP analysis, and NIA. To
determine energy savings that will result from an amended energy
conservation standard, DOE compares energy use at each of the higher
energy efficiency levels to the energy consumption of the baseline
unit. Similarly, to determine the changes in price to the consumer that
will result from an amended energy conservation standard, DOE compares
the price of a unit at each higher efficiency level to the price of a
unit at the baseline. Additional details on the selection of baseline
units may be found in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
Table IV.1 presents the baseline levels identified for each
dishwasher product class in the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis, and
Table IV.2 presents the baseline levels identified for each dishwasher
product class in this NOPR.

Table IV.1--Baseline Dishwasher Efficiency Levels Evaluated in the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis \33\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated annual Estimated annual Per-cycle water
Product class energy use (kWh/ energy use (kWh/ consumption (gal/
year) * year) ** cycle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard-size..................................... 307 263 5.0
Compact-size...................................... 222 178 3.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Using appendix C1.
** Using appendix C2.

Table IV.2--Baseline Dishwasher Efficiency Levels Proposed in This NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated annual Estimated annual Per-cycle water
Product class energy use (kWh/ energy use (kWh/ consumption (gal/
year) * year) ** cycle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard-size..................................... 307 263 5.0
Compact-size...................................... 222 191 3.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Using appendix C1.
** Using appendix C2.

DOE updated the baseline efficiency level for the compact-size
dishwasher product class from 178 kWh/year to 191 kWh/year, when using
appendix C2, as shown in Table IV.1 and Table IV.2. In the January 2022
Preliminary Analysis, DOE translated the current compact-size product
class standard level of 222 kWh/year, which is based on 215 annual
cycles, to an EAEU based on 184 annual cycles using the baseline
standby power energy use estimate of 2.3 watts from the December 2016
Final Determination (See chapter 7 of the December 2016 Final
Determination TSD).\34\ However, based on its most

[[Page 32531]]

recent testing of compact-size dishwashers, conducted in October 2020,
DOE determined for this NOPR that current baseline compact-size
dishwashers consume 0.5 watts in standby mode. Using this updated
standby power value to translate 222 kWh/year from 215 annual cycles to
184 annual cycles, DOE calculated an updated baseline EAEU value of 191
kWh/year for compact-size dishwashers. Accordingly, DOE is proposing
the baseline compact-size dishwasher efficiency level to be 191 kWh/
year and 3.5 gal/cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ See chapter 5, section 5.3.1 of the January 2022
Preliminary TSD for further information. The second Estimated Annual
Energy Use column did not appear in the January 2022 Preliminary
TSD, but has been added to reflect the changes in the January 2023
TP Final Rule.
\34\ To translate the current dishwasher EAEU standards from 215
annual cycles to 184 annual cycles, DOE separated the EAEU into
annual active mode energy use and annual standby mode energy use.
DOE multiplied the annual active mode energy use by 184 cycles/year
and divided by 215 cycles/year, then added back the annual standby
energy use to determine updated EAEU values based on 184 annual
cycles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE requests comment on the proposed baseline compact-size
dishwasher EAEU of 191 kWh/year for this NOPR.
b. Higher Efficiency Levels
Using the efficiency-level approach, the higher 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 this approach, DOE identified four efficiency levels
beyond the baseline for standard-size dishwashers and two for the
compact-size product class.
Table IV.3 and Table IV.4 present the efficiency levels for
standard-size and compact-size dishwashers, respectively, from the
January 2022 Preliminary Analysis.

Table IV.3--Efficiency Levels for Standard-Size Dishwashers Evaluated in the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis
\35\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated annual Estimated annual Per-cycle water
Efficiency level energy use (kWh/ energy use (kWh/ consumption (gal/
year) * year) ** cycle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.......................................... 307 263 5.0
1................................................. 270 232 3.5
2................................................. 260 223 3.3
3................................................. 240 206 3.2
4 (Max-Tech)...................................... 225 193 2.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Using appendix C1.
** Using appendix C2.

Table IV.4--Efficiency Levels for Compact-Size Dishwashers Evaluated in the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated annual Estimated annual Per-cycle water
Efficiency level energy use (kWh/ energy use (kWh/ consumption (gal/
year) * year) ** cycle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.......................................... 222 178 3.5
1................................................. 203 174 3.1
2 (Max-Tech)...................................... 144 124 1.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Using appendix C1.
** Using appendix C2.

In the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE requested comment on
whether the efficiency levels for each product class were appropriate.
DOE also observed that the design options at baseline and EL 1 for
compact-size dishwashers were the same and sought feedback on the
differences, if any, between baseline and EL 1 compact-size dishwasher
design options. See Executive Summary, section ES.4.4 of the January
2022 Preliminary TSD. DOE did not receive any comments on the
similarities or differences in design options between baseline and EL 1
for compact-size dishwashers. The following paragraphs summarize the
comments DOE received regarding the efficiency levels for each product
class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ See chapter 5, section 5.3.2 of the January 2022
Preliminary TSD for further information. The second Estimated Annual
Energy Use column did not appear in the January 2022 Preliminary
TSD, but has been added to reflect the changes in the January 2023
TP Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AHAM commented that energy conservation standards more stringent
than ENERGY STAR V. 6.0 criteria are likely to result in limited energy
savings, degraded performance, and, due to undesirable consumer
behaviors such as increased handwashing and pre-rinsing, increased
water and energy consumption. (AHAM, No. 26 at p. 2) Whirlpool
commented that consumers would be dissatisfied with dishwasher
performance at EL 2 and above, which will lead to compensatory
behaviors, such as pre-rinsing, handwashing, using heavier cycles and
options, and rewashing dishes, that lower the overall expected energy
and water savings from such standards. Whirlpool requested that DOE
assess and quantify this compensatory behavior in its analysis.
(Whirlpool, No. 21 at p. 6)
AHAM commented that, if DOE did not include a cleaning index
threshold in the dishwashers test procedure, the January 2022
Preliminary Analysis justified amended energy conservation standards
for dishwashers up to, but not exceeding, EL 1. AHAM stated that
products on the market have a demonstrated capability to achieve EL 1
while retaining consumer satisfaction with cleaning performance, drying
performance, and cycle duration. (AHAM, No. 26 at p. 3) AHAM commented
that DOE's data demonstrate that many models at EL 1 would not meet
DOE's cleaning index threshold of 65 proposed in the December 2021 TP
NOPR, and would require re-testing. (AHAM, No. 26 at p. 13) In late
comments submitted after the close of the comment period, AHAM noted
that its initial analysis indicating that many models at EL 1 would not
meet DOE's cleaning index threshold of 65 proposed in the December 2021
TP NOPR is unchanged by its updated comments, wherein AHAM commented
that its data from the 2013 round robin testing was more relevant,
given that the test variation in cleaning index based on the 2013 round
robin testing was also 7. (AHAM, No. 31 at p. 4)
AHAM stated that dishwashers are nearing maximum efficiency under
the available technology, and additional

[[Page 32532]]

efficiency gains are not available without increasing costs or
sacrificing performance or product functionality. (AHAM, No. 26 at p.
3) AHAM also commented that more radical or comprehensive the design
change, the more likely retooling is necessary and the greater the
product cost and the investment. AHAM also stated current dishwasher
platforms are at the limit of energy and water use reduction achievable
through changes in components. (AHAM, No. 26 at pp. 14-15)
DOE notes that its analyses account for consumer behaviors such as
handwashing when conducting the energy and water use analyses.\36\ DOE
also notes that testing and teardowns showed that dishwashers that span
a range of efficiencies are available currently, utilizing available
technology options, and these models are capable of achieving a
cleaning index of at least 70, as required by the test procedure
adopted in the January 2023 TP Final Rule that would be applicable for
any amended energy conservation standards. Additionally, DOE's teardown
analysis showed that a product platform change would not be necessary
until the max-tech efficiency level for standard-size dishwashers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ See section 10.4.2 in chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whirlpool commented that manufacturers typically underestimate
product efficiency, meaning that the vast majority of existing
dishwasher models already perform within the energy limit where DOE
believes cleaning performance can be maintained, rendering amended
energy conservation standards beyond EL 1 for standard-size dishwashers
unnecessary. (Whirlpool, No. 21 at p. 4) Whirlpool provided an example
to note that if manufacturers use a 3 to 5-percent safety factor, it
will imply that units rated at EL 1 (i.e., 270 kWh/year and 3.5 gal/
cycle when testing according to the currently applicable appendix C1)
already perform between 257-262 kWh/year and 3.3-3.4 gal/cycle.
Whirlpool stated that this indicates that many models are already
currently within the energy limit to where DOE believes that cleaning
performance can be maintained. (Id.) DOE notes that it evaluated
dishwasher cleaning performance based on the rated energy and water use
values certified by manufacturers. These results showed that units up
to the rated efficiencies at EL 3 achieved the specified cleaning index
threshold. Additionally, during manufacturer interviews, some
manufacturers acknowledged that DOE's cleaning index threshold was
achievable at efficiency levels up to EL 3 for standard-size
dishwashers. These manufacturers also stated that for certain models
that may not meet the cleaning index threshold, the safety margin
already built into the rated energy and water use values for such
models could be narrowed to maintain the existing efficiency level
without requiring recertification or to exceed the existing efficiency
level without requiring a redesign.
GEA supported increasing the minimum efficiency standard for
standard-size dishwashers to EL 1. (GEA, No. 25 at p. 2) But, GEA
commented that it opposed an increase to EL 1 if it were coupled with a
cleaning performance metric because, according to GEA, DOE's cleaning
performance metric as proposed in the December 2021 TP NOPR is flawed.
(Id.) GEA commented that the limited data provided by DOE indicate that
at least 73 percent of units would fail the cleaning performance score
at EL 1. (Id.)
The CA IOUs commented that EL 2 is an appropriate higher efficiency
level for both standard-size and compact-size dishwashers. The CA IOUs
stated that EL 1 would not provide significant enough energy and water
savings due to the fact that 100 percent of standard-size dishwasher
shipments in 2020 already met this efficiency level, according to
ENERGY STAR. Further, for standard-size dishwashers, the CA IOUs stated
that EL 2 would provide an average lifetime savings of $4 per consumer
and a net benefit to the majority of consumers, with an estimated
payback period of 7 years that is less than half of the average
dishwasher lifetime of 15.2 years. For compact-size dishwashers, the CA
IOUs stated that EL 2 is a reasonable standard level noting that it
would provide average lifetime cost savings of $36 per consumer with 60
percent of consumers experiencing a net benefit and a payback period of
7.1 years. (CA IOUS, No. 27 at pp. 1-2) The CA IOUs further commented
that DOE should amend standards to EL 2 to coordinate with the adoption
of the ENERGY STAR V. 7.0 \37\ specification, which finalized more
stringent energy and water use qualification criteria. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\37\ ENERGY STAR Program Requirements. Product Specification for
Residential Dishwashers. Eligibility Criteria. Version 7.0.
Effective date: July 19, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Joint Commenters stated that dishwashers are able to meet EL 3
while providing high consumer satisfaction across various areas of
performance. The Joint Commenters noted that: DOE investigated, in the
January 2022 Preliminary Analysis, the potential impact of reduced
energy and water consumption on dishwasher cleaning performance and
cycle time; and (2) EPA analyzed during the development of the ENERGY
STAR V. 7.0 Specification how dishwashers meeting the proposed
requirements perform across a range of metrics that impact consumer
satisfaction. (Joint Commenters, No. 23 at p. 1) The Joint Commenters
stated that EPA's analysis found that all dishwasher models rated by
Consumer Reports that met the ENERGY STAR V. 7.0 requirements (i.e., EL
3) received a cleaning performance rating of Very Good or Excellent.
The Joint Commenters additionally noted that both DOE and EPA found no
clear correlation between cycle time and energy and water consumption
and that the average cycle time of models rated by Consumer Reports for
models that meet ENERGY STAR V. 7.0 was 142 minutes, which is less than
the average cycle time of 148 minutes across all models rated by
Consumer Reports. The Joint Commenters additionally noted that higher
efficiency models are rated better than average for noise performance
and there were minimum differences in drying performance when comparing
models that met the ENERGY STAR V. 7.0 requirements to other reviewed
models. Finally, the Joint Commenters noted that the overall
satisfaction rating for models meeting the ENERGY STAR V. 7.0
requirements was 4.36 compared to 3.56 for all models. (Joint
Commenters, No. 23 at p. 2) NEEA commented that its consumer
satisfaction data for high efficiency dishwashers supports DOE's
conclusion regarding cleaning performance (i.e., cleaning performance
can be maintained up to EL 3 for standard-size dishwashers) and
demonstrates that noise and cycle time do not increase up to EL 3.
Specifically, NEEA commented that its market research found that
consumer satisfaction was higher at EL 1 and EL 3 compared to the
baseline (i.e., EL 0) and it was likely that these units operated
quietly compared to baseline units. (NEEA, No. 24 at pp. 2-3)
Whirlpool commented that amended standards beyond EL 1 would allow
only a third or less of the total allowable energy usage for drying
after allocating energy to cleaning, which is less than the half or
more of total energy use that Whirlpool would want to allocate to
drying to ensure excellent performance. (Whirlpool, No. 21 at p. 4)
Whirlpool commented that manufacturers struggle to deliver consistent
drying performance due to existing efficiency standards, and

[[Page 32533]]

the problem would be exacerbated at all levels beyond EL 1. Whirlpool
stated that there is not enough energy that can be allocated to drying
performance after available energy is allocated to the core function of
a dishwasher, cleaning performance, and that lower final rinse
temperatures and shorter heated drying necessitated by efficiency
standards make it difficult to completely dry all items in the
consumer's load and the interior tub itself. (Id.) During the January
2022 Preliminary Analysis webinar, AHAM asked if DOE had evaluated the
impact of potentially more stringent standards on drying performance,
noise, or other factors. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p.
43) AHAM commented that in order to design dishwashers that meet the
cleaning index threshold requirements proposed in the December 2021 TP
NOPR as well as potentially more stringent standards, it is likely that
manufacturers will need to reduce drying energy, lengthen cycles, and
potentially impact noise levels. (AHAM, No. 31 at p. 4)
Whirlpool commented that beyond EL 1, plastic tub dishwashers which
are lower priced and common amongst lower-income consumers, may not be
able to retain enough heat to keep the internal temperature high enough
with lower rinse temperatures and shorter heated drying durations, to
adequately remove water from dishes and the interior tub surfaces.
(Whirlpool, No. 21 at p. 4) Whirlpool further commented that if
manufacturers cannot offer competitive plastic tub dishwashers, it
would force low-income consumers to spend approximately $200 or more on
the purchase of a new dishwasher, negating potential lifetime energy
and water savings for the consumer. (Whirlpool, No. 21 at p. 5)
DOE notes that appendix C2 regulates only the normal cycle, as long
as the normal cycle meets the specified cleaning index threshold. As
such, DOE expects that a variety of other, non-regulated cycles
available on current dishwasher models would continue to be available
even if DOE were to amend existing standards, given that such cycle
types and/or cycle options have not been, and would continue to not be,
subject to any water or energy limits as a result of any energy
conservation standards. Specifically, DOE expects quick cycles, which
often clean a load within 1 hour or less, would still be available on
dishwasher models that currently offer such a cycle. DOE also expects
existing drying options would continue to be available on dishwashers
regardless of amended standards up to at least EL 3. DOE additionally
expects any amended standards up to at least EL 3 would not stifle
innovation around drying options and other features that could be
implemented on dishwashers outside the regulated cycle.
Additionally, while DOE's teardown analysis shows that plastic tubs
are available in dishwasher models at efficiency levels higher than EL
1, and DOE estimates that plastic tubs can be used up to EL 3 based on
its testing and teardowns, DOE also recognizes potential utility
concerns associated with implementing plastic tubs at higher efficiency
levels. DOE received similar feedback during manufacturer interviews
that some aspect of dishwasher performance could be compromised
particularly at EL 3 and beyond and DOE considered this feedback during
its analysis.
DOE additionally notes that its testing demonstrated that standard-
size dishwashers can achieve the threshold cleaning performance on the
normal cycle at all soil levels up to EL 3 and at least one of the
three soil levels at the max-tech efficiency level (EL 4).
Additionally, the ENERGY STAR Most Efficient 2022 \38\ database
includes other models besides the max-tech unit that DOE tested that
meet or exceed EL 4. To qualify for ENERGY STAR Most Efficient 2022,
units need to meet a minimum cleaning index of 70, including scores for
spots, streaks, and rack contact marks which are excluded from DOE's
test procedure at appendix C2, at each soil level on the normal cycle.
Accordingly, standard-size dishwashers that can achieve the threshold
cleaning performance on the normal cycle at EL 4 currently exist on the
market. DOE's testing also indicated that compact-size dishwashers can
achieve the threshold cleaning performance on the normal cycle even at
the heavy soil load.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ ENERGY STAR Most Efficient 2022. Dishwashers. Available at:
<a href="http://www.energystar.gov/most-efficient/me-certified-dishwashers/results?is_most_efficient_filter=Most+Efficient">www.energystar.gov/most-efficient/me-certified-dishwashers/results?is_most_efficient_filter=Most+Efficient</a> (last accessed
October 28, 2022).
\39\ All of the compact units in DOE's test sample were non-soil
sensing dishwashers, which are not required under appendix C2 to be
tested with lesser soil loads if the cleaning performance threshold
is met with the heavy soil load.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

During the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis webinar, AHAM asked if
DOE had conducted any testing or crosswalk to evaluate the impact of
the cleaning performance requirement proposed in the December 2021 TP
NOPR on the efficiency levels presented in the January 2022 Preliminary
Analysis. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 15) AHAM
commented that if DOE included a cleaning performance metric, DOE would
need to account for the changes in measured energy and water efficiency
that would likely result from the amendment and repeat its analysis to
re-establish the baseline and examine the distribution of higher-
efficiency models. (AHAM, No. 26 at pp. 3, 14) AHAM commented that,
based on the data DOE presented in the January 2022 Preliminary TSD,
most dishwashers would need to be re-rated, and many may be rated at
lower efficiency levels because the cleaning index threshold proposed
in the December 2021 TP NOPR would require the products be tested at
their highest energy consuming cycle. (AHAM, No. 26 at p. 13)
DOE notes that the January 2023 TP Final Rule has established the
cleaning performance requirement in the dishwasher test procedure that
will be required to demonstrate compliance with any amended standards.
That is, any dishwasher manufactured or sold in the United States on or
after the compliance date of any such amended standards will be
required to meet a minimum cleaning index threshold of 70 as a
condition of a valid test cycle. As such, no products would have to be
re-rated to comply with the current standards. Based on an analysis of
DOE's test data (presented previously in the December 2021 TP NOPR,
January 2022 Preliminary TSD, and January 2023 TP Final Rule),
dishwasher models that can meet or exceed the cleaning index threshold
of 70 on the normal cycle for all test cycles are already available up
to EL 3. Additionally, as mentioned elsewhere in this document, during
manufacturer interviews, some manufacturers acknowledged that DOE's
cleaning index threshold was achievable at efficiency levels up to EL 3
for standard-size dishwashers and, for certain models that may not meet
this threshold, the rated energy and water use values have an allowance
to allow potential increases in energy and water consumption without
requiring models to be re-rated at a higher energy and water
consumption value. Accordingly, DOE has not adjusted its baseline or
higher efficiency levels in this NOPR.
Whirlpool reiterated its comments from the October 2020 RFI that
until water filtration technology changes and poor water dilution
issues were resolved by a new technology, Whirlpool expects cleaning
performance will degrade at increasing efficiency levels. (Whirlpool,
No. 21 at p. 3) While DOE recognizes that poor water dilution can
impact cleaning performance, as mentioned elsewhere in this document,
DOE's testing and analysis indicates that satisfactory cleaning
performance is

[[Page 32534]]

achievable at all efficiencies. Additionally, the minimum cleaning
index threshold requirement specified in the new appendix C2 ensures
that cleaning performance will be maintained after the compliance date
of any new standards.
The Joint Commenters commented that DOE should evaluate an
additional intermediate efficiency level for compact-size dishwashers
between EL 1 and EL 2 to cover a significant gap of models that meet
the requirements of EL 1, but do not meet EL 2. The Joint Commenters
noted that over half of the models listed in CCMS meet the requirements
of EL 1, but fall short of EL 2. (Joint Commenters, No. 23 at pp. 2-3)
NEEA also commented on the lack of gradation between EL 1 and EL 2 and
stated that DOE should consider adding an efficiency level between EL 1
and EL 2 for compact-size dishwashers for similar reasons. NEEA stated
that the TSD shows a group of products at 1.75 gal/cycle and 155 kWh/
year as the water and energy values for the potential intermediate
level. (NEEA, No. 24 at p. 2) DOE considered whether to include an
additional gap-fill level between EL 1 and EL 2 for compact-size
dishwashers in the NOPR analysis. However, DOE found only 11 compact-
size basic models out of 65 compact-size basic models, excluding
``ultra-compact'' units with capacities less than 4 place settings,\40\
that could be considered for such a gap-fill level, with EAEUs ranging
from 155 kWh/year to 144 kWh/year and water consumption from 1.8 gal/
cycle to 1.7 gal/cycle. Given that compact-size dishwashers comprise
roughly 2 percent of the market, and the even smaller share of
dishwashers at such an intermediate level, DOE determined that an
additional gap-fill efficiency level is not warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\40\ DOE did not include ``ultra-compact'' compact-size
dishwashers when considering a gap-fill efficiency level because
these dishwashers could limit utility for certain consumers given
their small capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The CA IOUs commented that DOE should revisit its analysis of the
max-tech efficiency level for standard-size dishwashers. The CA IOUs
commented that they reviewed DOE's Compliance Certification Database
(``CCD'') and observed that the current market exceeds the max-tech
level specified in the January 2022 Preliminary TSD. The CA IOUs noted
that even though DOE screened out some technologies, it appeared that
the max-tech units observed by the CA IOUs represent levels of
efficiency available in today's market beyond DOE's max-tech level. (CA
IOUs, No. 27 at pp. 5-6) DOE notes that while units exist that exceed
the max-tech efficiency level presented in the January 2022 Preliminary
TSD, DOE did not consider these units for the max-tech efficiency level
for the following reasons: (1) they utilize a cold-water connection,
which DOE eliminated from consideration as a technology option in the
screening analysis; (2) they have a rated capacity of eight place
settings, but do not use a typical standard dishwasher configuration
(i.e., they have an 18-inch width instead of the more common 24-inch
width); (3) they are no longer available on the market; or (4) there is
an inconsistency between the rated EAEU in DOE's CCD and the EAEU
listed on the model's EnergyGuide label. DOE reviewed the CCD and
proposes to maintain the current EL 4 level for the reasons stated.
Table IV.5 shows the efficiency levels DOE evaluated for standard-
size dishwashers in this NOPR analysis.

Table IV.5--Efficiency Levels for Standard-Size Dishwashers Proposed in This NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated annual Estimated annual Per-cycle water
Efficiency Level energy use (kWh/ energy use (kWh/ consumption (gal/
year) * year) ** cycle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.......................................... 307 263 5.0
1................................................. 270 232 3.5
2................................................. 260 223 3.3
3................................................. 240 206 3.2
4 (Max-Tech)...................................... 225 193 2.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Using appendix C1.
** Using appendix C2.

DOE selected EL 1 to correspond to the current ENERGY STAR V. 6.0
qualification criteria for standard-size dishwashers. Seventy percent
of standard-size dishwasher basic models, as included in DOE's CCD,\41\
are rated at EL 1. DOE considered an intermediate level between ENERGY
STAR V. 6.0 and the baseline, but determined it to be unnecessary,
since only 5 percent of standard-size dishwasher basic models do not
meet the water and energy use criteria of the ENERGY STAR V. 6.0 level.
Therefore, further disaggregation of such a small portion of the market
is not warranted. DOE selected EL 3 as the level that corresponds to
the energy and water consumption levels that correspond to the 2022
ENERGY STAR Most Efficient \42\ qualification criteria as well as the
finalized ENERGY STAR V. 7.0 criteria which have a scheduled effective
date of July 2023.\43\ Additionally, 10 percent of standard-size
dishwasher basic models meet the EL 3 criteria according to DOE's CCD.
DOE established EL 2 as a gap-fill level by identifying product
efficiency ``clusters'' when analyzing the range of efficiencies
available on the market. The EAEU and water consumption values
associated with a significant cluster, comprising approximately 14
percent of basic models, between EL 1 and EL 3 served as the basis for
selecting EL 2. DOE also defines a ``max-tech'' efficiency level to
represent the maximum possible efficiency for a given product. EL 4 is
the max-tech efficiency level, as defined by the maximum available
technology that DOE identified on the market at the time of its
analysis, excluding from consideration those models discussed
previously. DOE did not identify any working prototypes that were more
efficient than this maximum available technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ U.S. Department of Energy's Compliance Certification
Database. Dishwashers (last accessed: July 19, 2022).
\42\ 2022 ENERGY STAR Most Efficient requirement for
dishwashers: <a href="http://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/ENERGY%20STAR%20Most%20Efficient%202022%20Dishwasher%20Final%20Criteria%20Memo_0.pdf">www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/ENERGY%20STAR%20Most%20Efficient%202022%20Dishwasher%20Final%20Criteria%20Memo_0.pdf</a>.
\43\ ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Residential
Dishwashers: <a href="http://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/ENERGY%20STAR%20Version%207.0%20Residential%20Dishwasher%20Final%20Specification.pdf">www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/ENERGY%20STAR%20Version%207.0%20Residential%20Dishwasher%20Final%20Specification.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table IV.6 shows the efficiency levels DOE evaluated for compact-
size dishwashers in this NOPR analysis.

[[Page 32535]]

Table IV.6--Efficiency Levels for Compact-Size Dishwashers Proposed in This NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated annual Estimated annual Per-cycle water
Efficiency level energy use (kWh/ energy use (kWh/ consumption (gal/
year) * year) ** cycle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.......................................... 220 191 3.5
1................................................. 203 174 3.1
2 (Max-Tech)...................................... 144 124 1.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Using appendix C1.
** Using appendix C2.

DOE evaluated two incremental efficiency levels above the baseline
for compact-size dishwashers. DOE selected EL 1 to correspond to the
current ENERGY STAR V. 6.0 qualification criteria for compact-size
dishwashers. Sixty-six percent of compact-size dishwasher models in
DOE's CCD are rated at EL 1. DOE identified EL 2 as the max-tech
efficiency level, defined by the maximum available technology that DOE
identified on the market at the time of its analysis.\44\ Based on its
analysis of the CCD, DOE identified EAEU and water consumption levels
of 144 kWh/year, based on 215 annual cycles, and 1.6 gal/cycle for EL
2. Approximately 21 percent of compact-size basic models in DOE's CCD
are rated at EL 2. At EL 2, all units in DOE's CCD are either under-
counter drawer units or ultra-compact units with rated capacities of 1
or 2 place settings. DOE is not aware of any countertop compact-size
dishwasher basic models on the market with rated capacities of 4 or
more place settings beyond EL 1. However, based on its analysis, DOE
understands that it is technologically feasible to design countertop
compact-size dishwashers with 4 or more place settings that can meet
the energy and water consumption requirements at EL 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\44\ For reasons similar to those described in the consideration
of a potential compact-size dishwasher gap-fill level, ultra-compact
dishwashers were excluding from consideration as the compact-size
max-tech level. Additionally, as discussed previously, DOE did not
consider those compact-size models with a discrepancy between the
rated EAEU in the CCD and the value on the EnergyGuide label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE requests feedback on the efficiency levels analyzed for each
product class in this proposal.
2. Manufacturer Production Cost Analysis
The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted
using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost
approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and
reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated
product, the availability and timeliness of purchasing the product on
the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:
<bullet> Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically
dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to
develop a detailed bill of materials for the product.
<bullet> Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing a
product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available
from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example)
to develop the bill of materials for the product.
<bullet> Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown
is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as
fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which
parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise
impractical (e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price
surveys using publicly available pricing data published on major online
retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and
other commercial channels.
In the present case, DOE conducted the analysis using the physical
teardown approach. For each product class, DOE tore down a
representative sample of models spanning the entire range of efficiency
levels, as well as multiple manufacturers within each product class.
DOE aggregated the results so that the cost-efficiency relationship
developed for each product class reflects DOE's assessment of a market-
representative ``path'' to achieve each higher efficiency level. The
resulting bill of materials provides the basis for the MPC estimates.
To develop the incremental MPCs associated with improving product
efficiency, DOE started with the baseline unit cost model and added the
expected changes associated with improving efficiency at each higher
efficiency level. By doing this, DOE excluded the costs of any non-
efficiency related components from the more efficient units.
Table IV.7 and Table IV.8 show incremental manufacturing costs
developed in the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis for standard-size
and compact-size dishwashers, in 2020 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\45\ See Chapter ES section ES.3.3.4 of the January 2022
Preliminary Analysis.

Table IV.7--Efficiency Levels and Incremental Manufacturer Production Costs for Standard-Size Dishwashers
Evaluated in the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis \45\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated annual Per-cycle water
Efficiency level energy use (kWh/ consumption (gal/ Incremental MPC
year) * cycle) (2020$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.......................................... 263 5.0 -
1................................................. 232 3.5 $18.27
2................................................. 223 3.3 27.53
3................................................. 206 3.2 71.12
4 (Max-Tech)...................................... 193 2.4 113.86
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Using appendix C2.

[[Page 32536]]

Table IV.8--Efficiency Levels and Incremental Manufacturer Production Costs for Compact-Size Dishwashers
Evaluated in January 2022 Preliminary Analysis \46\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated annual Per-cycle water
Efficiency level energy use (kWh/ consumption (gal/ Incremental MPC
year) * cycle) (2020$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.......................................... 178 3.5 ..................
1................................................. 174 3.1 ..................
2 (Max-Tech)...................................... 124 1.6 $37.41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Using appendix C2.

In the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE sought comment on
whether the MPCs at each efficiency level were appropriate given the
associated incremental changes manufacturers would likely make to meet
these levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\46\ See Chapter ES section ES.3.3.5 of the January 2022
Preliminary Analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Joint Commenters and NEEA commented that DOE may be
overestimating the incremental costs to meet intermediate efficiency
levels for standard-size dishwashers, citing EPA's analysis of prices
of available models on the market meeting the EL 3 level which is
equivalent to the ENERGY STAR V. 7.0 criteria. While both commenters
acknowledged that EPA's methodology is based on retail pricing instead
of MPCs, the Joint Commenters and NEEA concluded that DOE should
reevaluate the incremental costs at EL 3 since DOE's preliminary
analysis showed an incremental cost of more than two times the EPA
estimate. (Joint Commenters, No. 23 at p. 2; NEEA, No. 24 at pp. 1-2)
DOE notes that its incremental MPCs, which were determined from
teardowns and reviewed with manufacturers during interviews, estimate
the manufacturing cost of dishwashers including any necessary redesigns
to meet potential standards. Topics of discussion with manufacturers
included the design options that would be used to reach each efficiency
level for standard-size products as well as the costs associated with
those design options. DOE also reviewed its design options assumptions
and cost estimates for all components at each EL to identify if any
changes to its preliminary estimates would be appropriate. Based on
these discussions and additional analysis, DOE estimated its standard-
size dishwasher EL 3 costs to be the same as those presented in the
January 2022 Preliminary TSD, adjusted to 2022$.
For the other efficiency levels above the baseline for standard-
size dishwashers, DOE received manufacturer feedback that DOE had
identified all of the design options manufacturers would use to improve
efficiencies. Manufacturers also generally agreed with the design
options DOE assumed for each efficiency level, but some manufacturers
asserted that the distinction between EL 1 and EL 2 is less than DOE's
preliminary estimates. Upon reviewing its teardown sample again, DOE
observed that the same technology options exist at both EL 1 and EL 2,
with the EL 2 units often being rated with a smaller tolerance on the
rated EAEU and water consumption. In general, DOE observed that EL 2
units reduce rated energy and water use primarily by improving the
control strategy and design tolerances that are implemented to more
closely control water temperature, water fill volumes, etc.
Accordingly, in this NOPR, DOE revised its estimated design options and
MPC for standard-size dishwashers at EL 2. Specifically, DOE estimates
that the same design options would be implemented at EL 2 as are used
at EL 1, but with improved control strategies. Under this approach, the
MPC at EL 2 would be the same as that at EL 1.
Table IV.9 shows the baseline MPCs for standard-size and compact-
size dishwashers estimated for this NOPR. Table IV.10 and Table IV.11
show the incremental MPCs from the baseline for standard-size and
compact-size dishwashers, respectively, that were estimated for this
NOPR.

Table IV.9--Baseline Manufacturer Production Costs Estimated for This NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated annual Per-cycle water Manufacturer
Product class energy use (kWh/ consumption (gal/ production cost
year) * cycle) (2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard-size..................................... 263 5.0 184.35
Compact-size...................................... 191 3.5 215.17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Using appendix C2.

Table IV.10--Incremental Manufacturer Production Costs for Standard-Size Dishwashers Proposed for This NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated annual Per-cycle water
Efficiency level energy use (kWh/ consumption (gal/ Incremental MPC
year) * cycle) (2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.......................................... 263 5.0 ..................
1................................................. 232 3.5 10.17
2................................................. 223 3.3 10.17
3................................................. 206 3.2 61.50
4 (Max-Tech)...................................... 193 2.4 91.25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Using appendix C2.

[[Page 32537]]

Table IV.11--Incremental Manufacturer Production Costs for Compact-Size Dishwashers Proposed for This NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated annual Per-cycle water
Efficiency level energy Use (kWh/ consumption (gal/ Incremental MPC
year) * cycle) (2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.......................................... 191 3.5 ..................
1................................................. 174 3.1 ..................
2 (Max-Tech)...................................... 124 1.6 39.45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Using appendix C2.

The detailed description of DOE's determination of costs for
baseline and higher efficiency levels is provided in chapter 5 of the
NOPR TSD.
DOE requests comment on the baseline MPCs and incremental MPCs
developed for each dishwasher product class.
3. Manufacturer Selling Price
To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit
margin, DOE applies a multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the MPC.
The resulting manufacturer selling price (``MSP'') is the price at
which the manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce. DOE developed
an average manufacturer markup by examining the annual Securities and
Exchange Commission (``SEC'') 10-K reports filed by publicly traded
manufacturers primarily engaged in appliance manufacturing and whose
combined product range includes dishwashers.\47\ See chapter 12 of the
NOPR TSD for additional detail on the manufacturer markup.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\47\ U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Electronic Data
Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR) system. Available at
<a href="http://www.sec.gov/edgar/search/">www.sec.gov/edgar/search/</a> (last accessed September 27, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Markups Analysis

The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (e.g., retailer
markups, distributor markups, contractor markups) in the distribution
chain and sales taxes to convert the MSP estimates derived in the
engineering analysis to consumer prices which are then used in the LCC
and PBP analysis. At each step in the distribution channel, companies
mark up the price of the product to cover business costs and profit
margin.
For dishwashers, DOE further developed baseline and incremental
markups for each link in the distribution chain (after the product
leaves the manufacturer). Baseline markups are applied to the price of
products with baseline efficiency, while incremental markups are
applied to the difference in price between baseline and higher-
efficiency models (the incremental cost increase). The incremental
markup is typically less than the baseline markup and is designed to
maintain similar per-unit operating profit before and after new or
amended standards.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\48\ Because the projected price of standards-compliant products
is typically higher than the price of baseline products, using the
same markup for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would
result in higher per-unit operating profit. While such an outcome is
possible, DOE maintains that in markets that are reasonably
competitive it is unlikely that standards would lead to a
sustainable increase in profitability in the long run.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE relied on economic data from the U.S. Census Bureau to estimate
average baseline and incremental markups. Specifically, DOE used the
2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey for the ``electronics and appliance
stores'' sector to develop retailer markups.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\49\ U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Retail Trade Survey. 2017.
<a href="http://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/arts.html">www.census.gov/programs-surveys/arts.html</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AHAM commented that it objects to DOE's use of incremental markups
in translating manufacturer costs to retail prices. AHAM stated that it
has offered a wide range of actual results demonstrating that DOE's
theoretical model has no empirical justification. (AHAM, No. 26 at p.
10)
DOE's incremental markup approach assumes that an increase in
profitability, which is implied by keeping a fixed markup when the
product price goes up, is unlikely to be viable over time in reasonably
competitive markets. DOE recognizes that retailers are likely to seek
to maintain the same markup on appliances in response to changes in
manufacturer sales prices after an amendment to energy conservation
standards for dishwashers. However, DOE believes that retail pricing is
likely to adjust over time as retailers are forced to readjust their
markups to reach a medium-term equilibrium in which per-unit profit is
relatively unchanged before and after standards are implemented.
DOE acknowledges that retailer markup practices in response to
amended standards are complex and vary with business conditions.
However, DOE's analysis necessarily only considers changes in appliance
offerings that occur in response to amended standards. DOE continues to
maintain that its assumption that standards do not facilitate a
sustainable increase in profitability is reasonable.
Chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD provides additional detail on DOE's
development of the baseline and incremental retail markups.

E. Energy and Water Use Analysis

The purpose of the energy and water use analysis is to determine
the annual energy consumption of dishwashers at different efficiencies
in representative U.S. single-family homes, multi-family residences,
and mobile homes, and to assess the energy savings potential of
increased dishwasher efficiency. The energy use analysis estimates the
range of energy use of dishwashers in the field (i.e., as they are
actually used by consumers). The energy and water use analysis provides
the basis for other analyses DOE performed, particularly assessments of
the energy and water savings and the savings in consumer operating
costs that could result from adoption of amended or new standards.
DOE determined the average annual energy and water consumption of
dishwashers by multiplying the per-cycle energy and water consumption
by the number of cycles per year. In the January 2022 Preliminary
Analysis, DOE used the Energy Information Administration (``EIA'')'s
2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (``RECS'') data to calculate
an estimate of annual number of cycles.\50\ Having determined number of
cycles of dishwasher use per year for each RECS household, DOE
determined the corresponding annual energy and water consumption. In
the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE determined the average
annual cycles of operation for dishwashers to be 185 cycles per year
based on RECS 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\50\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information
Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey, 2015 Public
Use Microdata Files, 2015. Washington, DC. Available online at:
<a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recspubuse15/pubuse15.html">www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recspubuse15/pubuse15.html</a>.

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

[[Page 32538]]

The CA IOUs recommended that DOE reconsider its decision to use 185
average cycles per year in its analysis, and stated that RECS 2015 may
not accurately represent current consumer usage suggesting that later
surveys may find that use bounces back. Additionally, the CA IOUs
requested that DOE conduct a new survey on consumer usage to capture
current usage patterns and dishwasher load levels. (CA IOUs, No. 27 at
p. 3)
For this NOPR analysis, DOE primarily used data from RECS 2020,
which provides information on the frequency of dishwasher usage per
week for each household, to determine dishwasher utilization.\51\ RECS
2020 is the most recent data available regarding consumer usage that is
based on a nationally representative sample of housing units.\52\ For
surveyed households with a dishwasher for which usage was greater than
zero, RECS 2020 showed an increase, relative to RECS 2015, to an
average of 197 cycles per year, which was used in this analysis.\53\ A
report from Sun et al. showed that the average annual dishwasher cycle
counts obtained from Pecan Street field metered data based on a limited
household sample size and limited geographic locations were comparable
with the average cycle counts reported by RECS 2015 and RECS 2020.\54\
DOE is not aware of any publicly available data source in which
dishwasher load levels are reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\51\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information
Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey, 2015 Public
Use Microdata Files, 2015. Washington, DC. Available online at:
<a href="http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/">www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/</a>.
\52\ Compared to RECS 2015, RECS 2020 has a 72-percent larger
sample and more refined definition of household demographics, which
provides more granular information for the LCC analyses about the
presence of dishwashers in U.S. households and the variability of
their use.
\53\ DOE notes the 6-percent difference in annual cycle values
used in the test procedure final rule for dishwashers (88 FR 3234)
and this NOPR analysis. Appendix 8G shows the LCC results using the
RECS 2015 sample.
\54\ Sun, Qingyi, et. al. 2022. Using Field-Metered Data to
Characterize Consumer Usage Patterns of Residential Diswashers.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEEA stated that both market and field data analysis reveal typical
gas water heater efficiency factor is 0.62 to 0.70 EF, much lower than
the 0.78 EF used in the January 2022 Preliminary TSD. NEEA recommended
DOE to revisit the gas water heater efficiency value to ensure it is
nationally representative and to provide justification for the typical
gas water heat efficiency value in the final TSD. (NEEA, No. 24 at pp.
4-5) The Joint Commenters also urged DOE to reevaluate the assumed
water heater efficiencies to better reflect actual efficiencies in the
field in order to more accurately capture the energy savings associated
with reduced hot water consumption. The Joint Commenters stated that
DOE is overestimating the efficiencies of current water heaters in the
field and therefore underestimating the real-world energy savings for
dishwashers. The Joint Commenters estimated that the shipment-weighted
efficiencies for new water heaters are 92 percent and 64 percent for
electric and gas water heaters, respectively, and that average
efficiencies of water heaters found in the existing housing stock are
likely lower than those of new shipments. (Joint Commenters, No. 23 at
pp. 3-4)
In its analyses for consumer water heaters, DOE calculates the
energy use of water heaters using a simplified energy equation, the
water heater analysis model (``WHAM''). WHAM accounts for a range of
operating conditions and energy efficiency characteristics of water
heaters. To describe energy efficiency characteristics of water
heaters, WHAM uses three parameters that also are used in the DOE test
procedure: recovery efficiency, standby heat-loss coefficient, and
rated input power. The January 2022 Preliminary TSD states that DOE
used a recovery efficiency of 78 percent for gas water heaters, not
0.78 EF, for the calculation of hot water energy savings. The hot water
energy savings are almost directly proportional to the recovery
efficiency, and the NOPR analysis uses the most recent data reported
for the 2022 consumer water heater rulemaking.\55\ DOE requests comment
on the efficiency characteristics used in the consumer water heater
rulemaking described here and encourages comment in both rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\55\ DOE, 2022-03 Preliminary Analysis Technical Support
Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and
Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Consumer Water Heaters, March
2022. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0019-0018. Available at: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0019-0018">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0019-0018</a> (last accessed June 21, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD provides details on DOE's energy use
analysis for dishwashers.
DOE requests comment on the amount of water and energy used for
pre-rinsing dishes and flatware before their placement into a
dishwasher.

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts
on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for
dishwashers. The effect of new or amended energy conservation standards
on individual consumers usually involves a reduction in operating cost
and an increase in purchase cost. DOE used the following two metrics to
measure consumer impacts:
<bullet> The LCC is the total consumer expense of an appliance or
product over the life of that product, consisting of total installed
cost (MSP, distribution chain markups, sales tax, and installation
costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy use, maintenance, and
repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE discounts future operating
costs to the time of purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the
product.
<bullet> 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
at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for
the year that amended or new standards are assumed to take effect.
For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC
relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case, which reflects the
estimated efficiency distribution of dishwashers in the absence of new
or amended energy conservation standards. In contrast, the PBP for a
given efficiency level is measured relative to the baseline product.
For each considered efficiency level in each product class, DOE
calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of
housing units. As stated previously, DOE developed household samples
from RECS 2020. For each sample household, DOE determined the energy
consumption for dishwashers and the appropriate energy price. By
developing a representative sample of households, the analysis captured
the variability in energy consumption and energy prices associated with
the use of dishwashers.
Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost
of the product--which includes MPCs, manufacturer markups, retailer and
distributor markups, and sales taxes--and installation costs. Inputs to
the calculation of operating expenses include annual energy
consumption, energy prices and price projections, repair and
maintenance costs, product lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE created
distributions of values for product lifetime, discount rates, and sales
taxes, with probabilities attached

[[Page 32539]]

to each value, to account for their uncertainty and variability.
The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC relies on a Monte
Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability into the
analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly sample input values from
the probability distributions and dishwashers user samples. For this
rulemaking, the Monte Carlo approach is implemented in MS Excel
together with the Crystal Ball\TM\ add-on.\56\ The model calculated the
LCC for products at each efficiency level for 10,000 housing units per
simulation run. The analytical results include a distribution of 10,000
data points showing the range of LCC savings for a given efficiency
level relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. In
performing an iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation for a given
consumer, product efficiency is chosen based on its probability. If the
chosen product efficiency is greater than or equal to the efficiency of
the standard level under consideration, the LCC calculation reveals
that a consumer is not impacted by the standard level. By accounting
for consumers who already purchase more-efficient products, DOE avoids
overstating the potential benefits from increasing product efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\56\ Crystal Ball\TM\ is commercially-available software tool to
facilitate the creation of these types of models by generating
probability distributions and summarizing results within Excel,
available at <a href="http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/middleware/crystalball/overview/index.html">www.oracle.com/technetwork/middleware/crystalball/overview/index.html</a> (last accessed October 22, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for all consumers of dishwashers as
if each were to purchase a new product in the expected year of
compliance with new or amended standards. Amended standards would apply
to dishwashers manufactured 3 years after the date on which any new or
amended standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(B)) At this time,
DOE estimates publication of a final rule in 2024. Therefore, for
purposes of its analysis, DOE used 2027 as the first year of compliance
with any amended standards for dishwashers.
Table IV.12 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive
inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow
provide further discussion. Details of the spreadsheet model, and of
all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained in chapter 8
of the NOPR TSD and its appendices.

Table IV.12--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis
*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs Source/method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Cost................. Derived by multiplying MPCs by
manufacturer and retailer markups and
sales tax, as appropriate. Used
historical data to derive a price
scaling index to project product costs.
Installation Costs........... Assumed no change in installation costs
with efficiency level.
Annual Energy and Water Use.. The standby wattage multiplied by the
hours per year in standby mode. Average
number of cycles based on RECS 2020
data.
Variability: Based on the RECS 2020.
Energy Prices................ Electricity: Based on EEI 2021.
Variability: Regional energy prices
determined for 9 regions.
Energy Price Trends.......... Based on AEO 2022 price projections.
Repair and Maintenance Costs. Assumed no change with efficiency level.
Product Lifetime............. Average: 15.2 years.
Discount Rates............... Approach involves identifying all
possible debt or asset classes that
might be used to purchase the considered
appliances, or might be affected
indirectly. Primary data source was the
Federal Reserve Board's Survey of
Consumer Finances.
Compliance Date.............. 2027.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Not used for PBP calculation. References for the data sources
mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the
table or in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD.

AHAM stated that consumer costs and benefits from operating a
dishwasher are impacted more by the methods used to clean dishes, such
as washing by hand, pre-rinsing and then using a dishwasher, or using a
dishwasher without pre-rinsing than the economics of running a
dishwasher itself. AHAM further stated that instead of using the
existing LCC model, DOE should analyze the cost to a consumer of these
three principal modes of dish cleaning. (AHAM, No. 26 at pp. 7-8)
DOE included the water and energy volumes of washing dishes by hand
as an alternative to washing dishes by machine in the NIA model and is
described in section 10.4.2 in chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD. DOE
acknowledges that a broader perspective on dish cleaning could be
useful in identifying opportunities for energy and water conservation,
but the type of analysis that AHAM proposes is outside the scope of the
standards rulemaking process, which is focused on evaluating the
economic justification of potential standards on a particular product,
in this case dishwashers, according to the criteria set by EPCA. In
this rulemaking, DOE is only estimating the shipments of TSL3 would
drop 0.01% compared to the no new standards case during the 30-year
analysis period (2027-2056). DOE welcomes comment on the shipments
estimation and publicly available data on the energy and water
consumption from pre-rinsing dishes.
NEEA stated that efficiency improvements to an appliance can be
considered capital investments, with ``returns'' being the money saved
from utility bill reductions. NEEA commented that the return on
investment (``ROI'') is easy to calculate using this peer-reviewed
method and adds additional insight for stakeholders and decision-makers
and encouraged DOE to calculate and consider the ROI for each
efficiency level in its analysis. (NEEA, No. 24 at p. 5)
DOE acknowledges that ROI is a metric that can be useful in
evaluating investments in energy efficiency. However, the measures that
DOE has historically used to evaluate the economic impacts of standards
on consumers--LCC savings and PBP--are more closely related to the
language in EPCA that 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)) Therefore,

[[Page 32540]]

DOE finds it reasonable to continue to use those measures.
AHAM commented that DOE's use of the term ``Net Cost'' for impacted
households is incomplete and misleading. AHAM suggested that the ``Net
Cost'' should be calculated only among the affected households at a
given standard level. (AHAM, No. 26 at p. 10)
DOE notes that EPCA requires DOE to consider the impact of
standards on ``consumers'' of a product, not only those who would be
affected by a standard.\57\ Therefore, showing the share of all
consumers purchasing dishwashers who would experience a net LCC cost or
experience no impact at a given standard level is appropriate. The LCC
spreadsheet provides information that allows calculation of the share
of affected consumers that experience a net cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on May 19, 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.