[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 241 (Monday, December 20, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71840-71860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27461]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 241 / Monday, December 20, 2021 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 71840]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE-2019-BT-STD-0044]
RIN 1904-AE41
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Commercial Clothes Washers
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notification of proposed determination and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (``EPCA''), as amended,
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including commercial
clothes washers (``CCWs''). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of
Energy (``DOE'') to periodically determine whether more-stringent,
amended standards would be technologically feasible and economically
justified, and would result in significant conservation of energy. In
this notification of proposed determination (``NOPD''), DOE has
initially determined that amended energy conservation standards for
commercial clothes washers do not need to be amended and requests
comment on this proposed determination and the associated analyses and
results.
DATES:
Meeting: DOE will hold a webinar on Tuesday, February 8, 2022, from
12:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. See section VII, ``Public Participation,'' for
webinar registration information, participant instructions, and
information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
Comments: Written comments and information are requested and will
be accepted on or before February 18, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons
may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2019-BT-STD-0044
and/or RIN number 1904-AE41, by any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: to [email protected]. Include
docket number EERE-2019-BT-STD-0044 and/or RIN number 1904-AE41 in the
subject line of the message.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section VII of this document.
Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions
through a variety of mechanisms, including postal mail and hand
delivery/courier, the Department has found it necessary to make
temporary modifications to the comment submission process in light of
the ongoing coronavirus 2019 (``COVID-19'') pandemic. DOE is currently
suspending receipt of public comments via postal mail and hand
delivery/courier. If a commenter finds that this change poses an undue
hardship, please contact Appliance Standards Program staff at (202)
586-1445 to discuss the need for alternative arrangements. Once the
COVID-19 pandemic health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates
resuming all of its regular options for public comment submission,
including postal mail and hand delivery/courier.
Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices,
webinar attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov.
All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov
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 www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0044. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See
section VII, ``Public Participation,'' for further information on how
to submit comments through www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Bryan Berringer, 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. Email:
[email protected].
Ms. Kathryn McIntosh, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2002. Email:
[email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemakings for Commercial Clothes
Washers
III. General Discussion
A. Scope of Coverage
B. Equipment Classes
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. Cost Effectiveness
G. Further Considerations
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
A. Energy and Water Use Metrics
B. Technology Assessment
C. Screening Analysis
1. Screened-Out Technologies
2. Remaining Technologies
D. Engineering Analysis
1. Baseline Efficiency
2. Higher Efficiency Levels
E. Energy and Water Use Analysis
F. Shipments Analysis
G. National Energy and Water Savings Analysis
1. Equipment Efficiency Trends
2. National Energy and Water Savings
H. Further Considerations
V. Conclusions
[[Page 71841]]
A. General Comments From Interested Parties
B. Technological Feasibility
C. Significant Conservation of Energy
D. Cost-Effectiveness
E. Further Considerations
F. Summary
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
VII. Public Participation
A. 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 Determination
Title III, Part C \1\ of EPCA \2\ established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-
6317) Such equipment includes CCWs, the subject of this NOPD. (42
U.S.C. 6311(1)(H))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
\2\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is issuing this NOPD pursuant to the EPCA requirement that not
later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or
amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notification of
determination that standards for the equipment do not need to be
amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') including new
proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m))
For this proposed determination, DOE analyzed CCWs subject to
standards specified in 10 CFR 431.156(b).
DOE first analyzed the technological feasibility of more energy and
water efficient CCWs. For those CCWs for which DOE determined higher
standards to be technologically feasible, DOE estimated energy savings
that would result from potential energy conservation standards by using
the same approach as when it conducts a national impacts analysis. DOE
also considered the estimated impacts of amended energy conservation
standards on manufacturers of CCWs. Based on the results of the
analyses, summarized in section 0 of this document, DOE has tentatively
determined that current standards for CCWs do not need to be amended.
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this proposed determination, as well as some of the
historical background relevant to the establishment of standards for
CCWs.
A. Authority
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part
C of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), added by Public Law 95-
619, Title IV, section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation
Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. This equipment
includes CCWs, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(H))
EPCA prescribed initial standards for this equipment and directed DOE
to conduct additional cycles of rulemakings to determine whether the
established standards should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6313(e))
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 include definitions (42 U.S.C.
6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C.
6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the
authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42
U.S.C. 6316).
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 covered equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers
of covered equipment must use the Federal test procedures as the basis
for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the
applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations
about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly,
DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment
complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) With respect to CCWs, EPCA requires that
the test procedure for CCWs be the same as the test procedures
established by DOE for residential clothes washers (``RCWs''). (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(8)) Those test procedures appear at title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 430 subpart B appendix J2,
Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Automatic
and Semi-automatic Clothes Washers (``appendix J2'').
Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State
laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling,
and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C.
6297) 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. 6316(a)
(applying the preemption waiver provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6297))
DOE must periodically review its already established energy
conservation standards for covered equipment no later than 6 years from
the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a standard for
covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) This 6-year
look-back provision requires that DOE publish either a determination
that standards do not need to be amended or a NOPR, including new
proposed standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) EPCA further provides that, not
later than 3 years after the issuance of a final determination not to
amend standards, DOE must publish either a notification of
determination that standards for the equipment 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. 6316(a); 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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(2))
A determination under the 6-year look-back provision that amended
standards are not needed must be based on consideration of whether
amended standards will result in significant conservation of energy,
are technologically feasible, and are cost effective. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2))
[[Page 71842]]
Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), an evaluation of cost-
effectiveness requires DOE to consider savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of the covered equipment in the
type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges,
or maintenance expenses for the covered equipment that are likely to
result from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2) and
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II))
A NOPR proposing new or amended standards, must be based on the
criteria established under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(B)) The criteria at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) require that
standards be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency, which the Secretary determines is technologically feasible
and economically justified, and must result in significant conservation
of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In
deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE
must determine, after receiving public comment, 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;
(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))
DOE is publishing this NOPD in satisfaction of the 6-year review
requirement in EPCA.
B. Background
1. Current Standards
On December 15, 2014, DOE published a final rule (``December 2014
Final Rule'') to amend the standards for CCWs manufactured on or after
January 1, 2018. 79 FR 74492. These standards are currently applicable
and are codified in 10 CFR 431.156(b) and repeated in Table II.1.
Table II.1--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Clothes Washers Manufactured On or After
January 1, 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum modified energy
factor (``MEFJ2'') Maximum integrated
Equipment class (cubic feet (``ft water factor (``IWF'')
\3\'')/kilowatt-hour (gallons (``gal'')/ft
(``kWh'')/cycle) \3\/cycle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-Loading................................................... 1.35 8.8
Front-Loading................................................. 2.00 4.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. History of Standards Rulemakings for Commercial Clothes Washers
As described in section II.A of this document, EPCA established
standards for CCWs \3\ and directed DOE to conduct two rulemakings to
determine whether the established standards should be amended. (42
U.S.C. 6313(e)) DOE completed the first of these rulemakings by
publishing a final rule on January 8, 2010 that amended energy
conservation standards for CCWs manufactured on or after January 8,
2013. 75 FR 1122. DOE's most recent energy and water conservation
standards for CCWs were published in the December 2014 Final Rule,
which applied to CCWs manufactured on or after January 1, 2018. 79 FR
74492.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ EPCA prescribed that CCWs manufactured on or after January
1, 2007, shall have a Modified Energy Factor of at least 1.26 and a
Water Factor of no more than 9.5. (42 U.S.C. 6313(e)(1))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In support of the present review of the CCW energy conservation
standards, DOE published a request for information (``RFI'') on July
24, 2020 (``July 2020 RFI''), which identified various issues on which
DOE sought comment to inform its determination of whether the standards
for CCWs need to be amended. 85 FR 44795.
DOE received comments in response to the July 2020 RFI from the
interested parties listed in Table II.
Table II.2--Written Comments Received in Response to July 2020 RFI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization(s) Reference in this NOPD Organization type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation................................ Whirlpool................... Manufacturer.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Alliance for Joint Commenters............ Efficiency Organizations.
Water Efficiency, American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy, Natural Resources Defense
Council, Northwest Power and Conservation Council.
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers and Coin AHAM and CLA................ Industry Associations.
Laundry Association.
GE Appliances........................................ GEA......................... Manufacturer.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California California Investor-Owned Investor-Owned Utilities.
Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric Company. Utilities (``CA IOUs'').
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance................. NEEA........................ Efficiency Organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 71843]]
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket. (Docket No. EERE-2019-BT-STD-
0044, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0044). The references are arranged as follows: (Commenter
name, comment docket ID number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. General Discussion
DOE developed this proposed determination after considering
comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent
a variety of interests. This document addresses issues raised by these
commenters.
For this NOPD, DOE evaluated whether amended standards are needed
based on the whether such standards would result in significant
conservation of energy, are technologically feasible, and are cost
effective, as directed by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) Additionally, DOE considered
whether such standards would be economically justified according to the
statutory factors established in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) The results from this evaluation, discussed
in section 0 of this document, provide the basis for DOE's initial
determination that energy conservation standards for CCWs do not need
to be amended.
A. Scope of Coverage
This NOPD covers CCWs as defined by EPCA and codified by DOE at 10
CFR 431.152. ``Commercial clothes washer'' is defined as a soft-mounted
\5\ front-loading or soft-mounted top-loading clothes washer that: (1)
Has a clothes container compartment that (i) For horizontal-axis
clothes washers, is not more than 3.5 cubic feet; and (ii) For
vertical-axis clothes washers, is not more than 4.0 cubic feet; and (2)
Is designed for use in (i) Applications in which the occupants of more
than one household will be using the clothes washer, such as multi-
family housing common areas and coin laundries; or (ii) Other
commercial applications. 10 CFR 431.152. (See also 42 U.S.C. 6311(21))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Soft-mounted'' is a term used by industry to mean not
required to be bolted to a steel or concrete slab.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEEA and the CA IOUs recommended that DOE expand its scope of
coverage to include larger CCWs with up to 8.0 ft\3\ capacity. (NEEA,
No. 8 at pp. 9-10; CA IOUs, No. 7 at pp. 1-2) NEEA stated that larger-
capacity clothes washers (both soft-mount and hard-mount) are often
employed in laundromats and multi-family buildings. (NEEA, No. 8 at p.
9) The CA IOUs cited data from the 2013-2019 CLA Annual Industry
Surveys and concluded, based on the surveys, that laundromats are
continuing a multi-year trend toward higher-capacity machines.\6\ (CA
IOUs, No. 7 at pp. 1-2) NEEA cited data from the CLA Annual Industry
Survey published in 2019 (``2019 CLA Industry Survey'') indicating that
47 percent of clothes washers in laundromats have tub volumes larger
than the capacity limits defined by DOE. (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 9) NEEA
stated that these larger equipment enable consumers to wash larger
loads and bulky items that do not fit into smaller machines. Id. NEEA
estimated that expanding the scope of coverage up to 8 ft\3\ could save
0.3 quads of energy. Id. at p. 10. NEEA stated that the DOE test
procedure could address larger CCWs because DOE already has granted
test procedure waivers for RCWs with up to 8.0 ft\3\ capacity. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 2013-2019 Annual Industry Surveys. Coin Laundry Association.
More information available to members at: www.coinlaundry.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEEA and the CA IOUs also noted that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (``EPA'') includes larger CCWs in the ENERGY STAR
Program. (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 10; CA IOUs, No. 7 at p. 2) NEEA asserted
that covering larger-capacity clothes washers would provide equal
treatment for all manufacturers, since businesses consider clothes
washers of varying capacities for laundromats or multi-family housing,
and some machines (i.e., smaller-capacity models) are subject to
standards, while others (i.e., larger-capacity models) are not. (NEEA,
No. 8 at p. 10) NEEA further cited the 2019 CLA Industry Survey and
stated that 60 percent of laundromat owners list utility costs as one
of the largest problems they face in their business. Id.
As noted, the EPCA definition for CCWs specifies that front-loading
CCWs are no larger than 3.5 ft\3\ and top-loading CCWs are no larger
than 4.0 ft\3\. Expansion of coverage beyond the statutorily-defined
capacity limits is outside the scope of this proposed determination.
B. Equipment Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
divides covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of energy
used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify
differing standards. 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. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
For CCWs, the current energy conservation standards specified in 10
CFR 431.156 are based on two equipment classes delineated according to
the axis of loading: Top-loading and front-loading.
In the December 2014 Final Rule, DOE determined specifically that
the ``axis of loading'' constituted a feature that justified separate
equipment classes for top-loading and front-loading CCWs, and that
``the longer average cycle time of front-loading machines warrants
consideration of separate equipment classes.'' 79 FR 74492, 74498. DOE
stated that a split in preference between top-loading and front-loading
CCWs would not indicate consumer indifference to the axis of loading,
but rather that a certain percentage of the market expresses a
preference for (i.e., derives utility from) the top-loading
configuration. 79 FR 74492, 74498-74499. DOE further noted that the
separation of CCW equipment classes by location of access is similar in
nature to the equipment classes for residential refrigerator-freezers,
which include separate product classes based on the access of location
of the freezer compartment (e.g., top-mounted, side-mounted, and
bottom-mounted), and for which the location of the freezer compartment
provides no additional performance-related utility other than consumer
preference. 79 FR 74492, 74499. In other words, the location of access
itself provides a distinct consumer utility. Id.
In response to the June 2020 RFI, DOE received several comments
regarding the CCW equipment classes.
The CA IOUs urged DOE to consider combining the top-loading and
front-loading equipment classes for CCWs. (CA IOUs, No. 7 at pp. 5-6)
The CA IOUs stated that the existence of separate equipment classes for
top and front-loading CCWs prevents DOE from setting the most efficient
energy and water standards possible--noting that standards for top-
loading CCWs are less stringent than standards for front-loading CCWs.
Id. In support of its assertion, the CA IOUs cited the 2013-2019 CLA
Annual Industry Surveys that indicates that the CCW market is following
a multi-year trend away from top-loading CCWs. Id. The CA IOUs also
commented that a manufacturer had expressed support for the
consolidation of RCW product classes in comments submitted in response
to an RFI
[[Page 71844]]
published August 2, 2019.\7\ Id. The CA IOUs noted that the most recent
ENERGY STAR Clothes Washer Specification consolidated requirements for
top-loading and front-loading CCWs. Id. The CA IOUs also commented
that, although DOE concluded in the December 2014 Final Rule that
method of loading is a feature that provides distinct customer utility,
benefits such as faster cycle time and lower first cost have become
less differentiated between top-loading and front-loading CCWs. Id. The
CA IOUs stated that method of loading alone is insufficient to justify
a separate, lower standard under EPCA, and recommend that DOE
reconsider consolidating classes. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 84 FR 37794. The CA IOUs referenced comment number 12 on
that rulemaking, which can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Joint Commenters recommended that DOE eliminate the equipment
class distinctions for top-loading and front-loading CCWs, stating that
evaluating potential amended standards for a single, consolidated
equipment class would allow for achieving greater savings. (Joint
Commenters, No. 4 at p. 3) The Joint Commenters asserted that method of
loading provides a distinct utility for purchasers of such equipment.
Id.
DOE disagrees with the CA IOUs that a trend in decreasing top-
loading versus front-loading sales indicates that the equipment classes
should be combined. Rather, the continued availability and purchase of
top-loading CCWs indicates that a portion of the market continues to
express a preference for (i.e., derives utility from) the top-loading
configuration.
In response to the CA IOUs' comment that differences in cycle time
and first cost between the two equipment classes have become smaller,
DOE acknowledges, as in the December 2014 Final Rule, that differences
in cycle times between top-loading and front-loading CCWs have
diminished due to improvements in front-loading technology, and that as
technology has progressed, cycle time has become a less meaningful
differentiator between CCW equipment classes. 79 FR 74492, 74499.
Furthermore, DOE does not separate equipment classes based on upfront
costs that anyone, including the consumer, laundromat owner, or
manufacturer, may bear. Id. at 79 FR 74498.
In response to the CA IOUs' and Joint Commenters' comments that
method of loading alone does not provide a distinct utility and is
insufficient to justify a separate standard, DOE reiterates its
determination from the December 2014 Final Rule that method of loading
provides specific utility that warrants separate equipment classes. 79
FR 74492, 74498-74499. DOE further reiterates its statement from the
December 2014 Final Rule that it views utility as an aspect of the
product (or equipment, in the case of CCWs) that is accessible to the
layperson and is based on user operation, rather than performing a
theoretical function. Id. DOE determines consumer utility on a case-by-
case basis and determines what value a product (or equipment) could
have based on the consumer base and the associated technology. Id. For
example, front-loading CCWs are stackable \8\ and can be useful in a
concentrated laundromat or multifamily housing setting. Id. On the
other hand, top-loading CCWs provide the utility of adding clothes
during the wash cycle. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In this context, ``stackable'' refers to the ability to
stack a clothes dryer on top of a front-loading CCW, which conserves
space inside a laundromat or multi-family housing laundry facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE further reiterates that within each established equipment
class, DOE has set the standard level at a level that achieves the
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary determined
was technologically feasible and economically justified, as required by
EPCA. Id. at 79 FR 74536. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A))
Finally, DOE notes that the EPCA criteria for establishing
equipment classes do not apply to the ENERGY STAR program and that the
ENERGY STAR equipment classes and qualification levels are established
by EPA in a separate process that provides opportunities for
stakeholder input.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Information on participation in the ENERGY STAR program for
CCWs is available at www.energystar.gov/products/commercial_clothes_washers/partners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this NOPD, DOE preliminarily maintains its conclusions from the
December 2014 Final Rule that the method of loading is a feature that
provides distinct consumer utility that justifies separate equipment
classes under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) This NOPD
analysis maintains separate equipment classes for top-loading and
front-loading CCWs.
C. Test Procedure
EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a))
Manufacturers of covered equipment must use these test procedures to
certify to DOE that their equipment complies with energy conservation
standards and to quantify the efficiency of their equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s); and 42 U.S.C. 6314(d))
As stated, EPCA requires that the test procedures for CCWs must be
the same as the test procedures for RCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(8))
Accordingly, DOE specifies at 10 CFR 431.154 that the test procedures
for clothes washers at appendix J2 must be used to determine compliance
with the standards for CCWs codified at 10 CFR 431.156(b).\10\ Appendix
J2 includes provisions for determining the modified energy factor
(``MEFJ2'') \11\ in ft\3\/kWh/cycle and the integrated water
factor (``IWF'') in gal/cycle/ft\3\. CCWs manufactured on or after
January 1, 2018 must meet current standards, which are based on
MEFJ2 and IWF as determined using appendix J2. 10 CFR
431.154 and 10 CFR 431.156(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 10 CFR 431.154 also specifies that test procedures for
clothes washers in appendix J1 to subpart B of part 430 (``appendix
J1'') must be used to test CCWs to determine compliance with the
energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.156(a). These standards
were applicable to CCWs manufactured on or after January 8, 2013,
and before January 1, 2018.
\11\ Section 4.5 of appendix J2 defines the modified energy
factor abbreviation as ``MEF.'' DOE defines the abbreviation
``MEFJ2'' at 10 CFR 431.152 to mean the modified energy
factor as determined in section 4.5 of appendix J2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEEA encouraged DOE to update CCW standards based on expected test
procedure updates. (NEEA, No. 8 at pp. 7-8) NEEA referenced comments
from its own organization as well as other interested parties that have
previously been submitted to DOE in response to a residential and
commercial clothes washer test procedure RFI published on May 22, 2020
(``May 2020 TP RFI''): \12\ A suggestion to incorporate a measure of
cleaning performance in the test procedure; various changes to reduce
test burden and increase representativeness; and a recommendation to
consider an alternative energy metric. Id. NEEA further commented that
changes to the CCW test procedure may warrant changes to the CCW
standards. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The May 2020 TP RFI is available online at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2016-BT-TP-0011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Joint Commenters recommended that DOE's evaluation of potential
CCW standards changes be based on an amended test procedure that better
reflects real-world use. (Joint Commenters, No. 4 at p. 3) The Joint
Commenters referenced their comments provided in response to the May
2020 TP RFI, which provided suggestions such as changing the Warm Wash/
Cold Rinse temperature selection method, capturing the impact of cycle
modifiers on energy and water use, and specifying
[[Page 71845]]
an average load size independent of capacity.\13\ Additionally, the
Joint Commenters commented that the test procedure is likely
significantly underestimating drying energy for many clothes washers by
providing what the Joint Commenters assert is an unrepresentative
measurement of remaining moisture content (``RMC''). (Joint Commenters,
No. 4 at p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See comment number 10 in Docket number EERE-2016-BT-TP-
0011. Available online at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2016-BT-TP-0011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE published a test procedure NOPR on September 1, 2021
(``September 2021 TP NOPR'') in which it responded to comments received
in response to the May 2020 TP RFI, including the comments cited
previously by NEEA and the Joint Commenters. 86 FR 49140. In the
September 2021 TP NOPR, DOE has proposed amendments to the current
appendix J2 test procedure as well as introduced a new test procedure
that would be codified at appendix J to 10 CFR part 430 subpart B
(``appendix J''), if finalized, and would be used for future evaluation
of updated efficiency standards.
As discussed, EPCA requires that the test procedures for CCWs be
the same as the test procedures established by DOE for RCWs. 42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(8). Use of appendix J2 is currently required for any
representations of energy or water consumption of RCWs, including
demonstrating compliance with the currently applicable energy
conservation standards. Accordingly, DOE conducted the analysis
presented in this document for CCWs based on energy and water use as
measuring using appendix J2.
D. Technological Feasibility
1. General
In evaluating potential amendments to energy conservation
standards, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information
gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that
could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the
subject of the determination. 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 equipment or in working
prototypes to be technologically feasible. 10 CFR 431.4; sections
6(c)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A to 10 CFR part 430 subpart C
(``Process Rule'').
After DOE has determined that particular technology options are
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1)
Practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse
impacts on equipment utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety; and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. 10
CFR 431.4; sections 6(c)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of the Process
Rule. Section IV.C of this document discusses the results of the
screening analysis for CCWs, particularly the designs DOE considered,
those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the higher
efficiency levels considered in this proposed determination.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
EPCA requires that in proposing an amended or new energy
conservation standard, or proposing no amendment or no new standard for
a type (or class) of covered equipment, DOE must determine the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use
that is technologically feasible for each type (or class) of covered
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, DOE
conducts an engineering analysis, through which it determines the
maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'') improvements in energy
efficiency, using the design parameters for the most efficient
equipment available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-
tech levels that DOE determined for this analysis are described in
section IV.D of this document.
E. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
For each efficiency level (``EL'') evaluated, DOE projects energy
savings from application of the EL to the equipment purchased in the
30-year period that begins in the assumed year of compliance with the
potential standards (2024-2053). The savings are measured over the
entire lifetime of the equipment purchased in the previous 30-year
period. DOE quantifies the energy savings attributable to each EL 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 the
equipment would likely evolve in the absence of amended energy
conservation standards. DOE uses the methodology from its national
impact analysis (``NIA'') to estimate national energy savings (``NES'')
from potential amended or new standards for CCWs. The methodology
(described in section IV.G of this document) calculates energy savings
in terms of site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by
equipment at the locations where they are used. In addition to the
evaluation of energy savings and consumption, which is the basis for
determining the significance of such savings, DOE also evaluated
potential water savings and consumption.
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)) Although the term ``significant'' is
not defined in the EPCA, the U.S. Court of Appeals, for the District of
Columbia Circuit in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington,
768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), opined that Congress intended
``significant'' energy savings in the context of EPCA to be savings
that were not ``genuinely trivial.''
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.\14\ For
example, the United States has now rejoined the Paris Agreement and
will exert leadership in confronting the climate crisis.\15\
Additionally, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The numeric threshold for determining the significance of
energy savings established in a final rule published on February 14,
2020 (85 FR 8626, 8670), was subsequently eliminated in a final rule
published on December 13, 2021 (86 FR 70892). The effective date of
this rule is January 12, 2022.
\15\ See Executive Order 14008, 86 FR 7619 (Feb. 1, 2021)
(``Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In evaluating the significance of energy savings, DOE considers
differences in primary energy and full-fuel cycle (``FFC'') \16\
effects for different
[[Page 71846]]
covered products and equipment when determining whether energy savings
are significant. Primary energy and FFC effects include the energy
consumed in electricity production (depending on load shape), in
distribution and transmission, and in extracting, processing, and
transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels),
and thus present a more complete picture of the impacts of energy
conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 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. The FFC metric is
discussed in DOE's statement of policy and notice of policy
amendment. 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701
(Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a
case-by-case basis.
F. Cost Effectiveness
Under EPCA's 6-year-lookback review provision for existing energy
conservation standards at 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1) (as referenced by 42
U.S.C. 6316(a)), cost-effectiveness of potential amended standards is a
relevant consideration both where DOE proposes to adopt such standards,
as well as where it does not. In considering cost-effectiveness when
making a determination of whether existing energy conservation
standards do not need to be amended, DOE considers the savings in
operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered
equipment compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial
charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered equipment that are
likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(A) (referencing 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2))) Additionally, any new
or amended energy conservation standard prescribed by the Secretary for
any type (or class) of covered equipment shall be designed to achieve
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency which the Secretary
determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Cost-effectiveness is one of
the factors that DOE must ultimately consider to support a finding of
economic justification, if it is determined that amended standards are
appropriate under the applicable statutory criteria. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II))
G. Further Considerations
As stated previously, pursuant to EPCA, if DOE does not issue a
notification of determination that energy conservation standards for
CCWs do not need to be amended, DOE must issue a NOPR that includes new
proposed standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(B)) The
new proposed standards in any such NOPR must be based on the criteria
established under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(B)) The criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) require that standards
be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency,
which the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) 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 seven statutory factors listed in section II.A
of this document. The additional analysis conducted in consideration of
whether amended standards would be economically justified, specifically
an analysis of potential manufacturer impacts, is presented in section
IV.H of this document.
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
This section describes the results of the analyses DOE has
performed for this proposed determination with regard to CCWs. Separate
subsections address each component of DOE's analyses. DOE used
shipments projections and calculated national energy and water savings
expected from potential efficiency conservation standards.
A. Energy and Water Use Metrics
As discussed, manufacturers are required to demonstrate compliance
with the current energy conservation standards for CCWs codified at 10
CFR 431.156(b), which are based on the MEFJ2 metric and the
IWF metric defined in appendix J2. MEFJ2 is defined as the
clothes container capacity in ft\3\ divided by the sum of (1) the per-
cycle machine energy, (2) the per-cycle water heating energy, and (3)
the per-cycle drying energy; expressed in kilowatt hours (``kWh''). A
higher MEFJ2 value indicates more efficient performance. IWF
is defined as the total per cycle water use in gallons (``gal'')
divided by the clothes container capacity in ft\3\. A lower IWF value
indicates more efficient performance.
NEEA recommended that DOE adopt an alternative energy efficiency
metric that would replace MEFJ2 for CCWs. (NEEA, No. 8 at p.
11) NEEA suggested that the alternative energy efficiency metric be
based on the weighted-average load size applicable to the machine
(measured in pounds of textile), and the weighted-average energy use of
the machine (measured in kWh per cycle). Id. NEEA also recommended
alternatively that DOE develop an energy conservation standard that is
a function of capacity. Id. NEEA stated that it expects that larger-
capacity CCWs would likely need to meet higher MEFJ2 and
lower IWF requirements than smaller-capacity CCWs, given the general
trend that larger-capacity appliances are more efficient. Id. NEEA
commented that standards for CCWs that are a function of capacity would
be similar to standards for products such as refrigerators, room air
conditioners, and water heaters, where the standards are a function of
adjusted volume, cooling capacity, and storage volume, respectively.
Id.
NEEA further commented that improvement to standby power offers
potential energy savings if DOE were to include standby power in the
energy efficiency metric for CCWs, similar to the way it does for RCWs
with the integrated modified energy factor (``IMEF'') metric. (NEEA,
No. 8 at p. 2) NEEA estimated that improvements to standby power in
CCWs could save 1.8 percent of total site energy use. Id.
NEEA provided results of its testing of 12 RCWs and two CCWs,
encompassing both ENERGY STAR and non-ENERGY STAR-qualified models.
(NEEA, No. 8 at pp. 8-9) In NEEA's sample, the average standby power of
CCWs was 6.4 watts (``W'') (which NEEA characterized as similar to
DOE's prior CCW standby measurements that ranged from 0.9 to 11.8 W),
compared to 0.5 W for RCWs. Id. NEEA also commented that, while CCWs
spend more time in the active cycle than RCWs, CCWs spend most of their
time in standby and low-power modes. Id.
NEEA recommended that if DOE decides to measure CCW standby power,
DOE should consider using IEC 62301: Edition 2.0 2011-01 (``Household
electrical appliances--Measurement of standby power'') \17\ and
incorporate low-power modes into the CCW measure of efficiency. (NEEA,
No. 8 at p. 9) NEEA also recommended that DOE test the energy use of
connected features in CCW energy use metrics as connected functionality
becomes more common for CCWs in laundromats and multi-family
households. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ IEC 62301: Edition 2.0 2011-01: Household electrical
appliances--Measurement of standby power. Available for purchase
online at: webstore.iec.ch/publication/6789.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described, in the September 2021 TP NOPR, DOE proposed to
establish a new clothes washer test procedure at appendix J. 86 FR
49140, 49143. As proposed, appendix J would establish
[[Page 71847]]
new efficiency metrics that would be based on the weighted-average load
size applicable to the machine (rather than on the clothes container
capacity, on which the current metrics are based) and the weighted-
average energy (or water) use of the machine. 86 FR 49140, 49143-49144.
As discussed, the proposed test procedure has not been finalized, and
is not used for this evaluation.
With regard to incorporating the energy use in standby mode into
the energy efficiency metric for CCWs, DOE concluded in the December
2014 Final Rule that establishing amended standards for CCWs based on
IMEF (i.e., establishing a metric that integrates standby mode and off
mode energy consumption into the overall efficiency metric) would not
be technically feasible. 79 FR 74492, 74501. As discussed in the
December 2014 Final Rule, promulgating amended standards based on IMEF
could enable backsliding if the new equivalent baseline standard was
established at a level that would accommodate all display and payment
types.\18\ Alternatively, if DOE were to establish the new equivalent
baseline standard level at the level corresponding to the lowest
standby power observed on non-vended ``push-to-start'' models,
manufacturers would be precluded from offering vend price displays,
payment systems, or other advanced controls on new baseline CCWs, which
would negatively impact consumer and end-user utility, since push-to-
start models are not suitable for coin-operated laundries or most
multi-family housing applications. Id. Finally, because of the wide
variations in standby power, CCWs with significantly different active
mode (i.e., MEF) ratings could have similar IMEF ratings depending on
their control panel functionalities, and vice versa. This would
diminish the usefulness of the IMEF metric as a means for
differentiating the active mode characteristics of different CCW
models. Id. For these reasons, DOE determined that establishing amended
standards for CCWs based on IMEF would not be technically feasible. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The December 2014 Final Rule provides discussion of an
example illustrating one potential backsliding scenario. 79 FR
74492, 74501.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As acknowledged by NEEA, the CCW standby power data submitted by
NEEA is consistent with the data DOE used to conduct its analysis for
the December 2014 Final Rule. DOE is not aware of, and commenters have
not submitted, any data or information that would cause DOE to reach a
different conclusion than was reached in the December 2014 Final Rule.
DOE tentatively reaffirms its prior conclusion that establishing
amended standards for CCWs based on IMEF would not be technically
feasible.
Regarding NEEA's recommendation to include the energy use
associated with ``connected'' features in CCW energy use metrics, DOE
described in the May 2020 TP RFI its understanding that connected
features for CCWs are available via certain external communication
modules, but that DOE is not aware of any CCW models with a
``connected'' function incorporated into the unit as manufactured
currently on the market. 85 FR 31065, 31068. DOE's long-standing
position is that generally the applicability of the energy conservation
standards under EPCA is limited to newly manufactured products (or
equipment), the title of which has not passed for the first time to a
consumer of the product (or equipment). See 72 FR 58189, 58203 (Oct.
12, 2007). (See also 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6302) As such, the
impact of aftermarket connected features would be outside the scope of
this analysis.
B. Technology Assessment
DOE develops information in the technology assessment that
characterizes the technology options that manufacturers use to attain
higher efficiency performance.
In the December 2014 Final Rule, DOE identified a number of
technology options that manufacturers could use to reduce energy
consumption in CCWs, as measured by the DOE test procedure. 79 FR
74492, 74504-74505. In the July 2020 RFI, DOE requested comment on any
changes to these technology options or whether there are any other
technology options that DOE should consider in its analysis. 85 FR
44795, 44797. DOE received several comments regarding potential
technology options.
NEEA recommended that DOE consider technologies from the December
2014 Final Rule and the RCW energy conservation standards direct final
rule (``DFR'') published on May 31, 2012 (77 FR 32308; ``May 2012 RCW
DFR'') \19\ that can reduce machine energy, hot water energy, and
drying energy. (NEEA, No. 8 at pp. 3-4) In particular, NEEA suggested
that DOE should focus on technologies that improve CCW water extraction
to reduce drying energy consumption, given that drying energy is the
largest contributor to the MEFJ2 efficiency metric. Id. NEEA
stated that a number of technologies are available that reduce RMC
without increasing cycle time, which NEEA stated is important to keep
relatively short for CCWs. Id. NEEA suggested that DOE evaluate the
impact of increasing spin speeds to reduce RMC. Id. NEEA presented data
from testing it conducted in 2020 showing that CCW spin speeds are
lower, and RMCs are higher, than comparable RCWs. Id. NEEA also
referenced an engineering tear-down it performed in 2019, which
compared a top-loading ENERGY STAR-qualified RCW with a similar top-
loading non-qualified RCW from the same manufacturer Id. at p. 5 NEEA
stated that its investigation revealed that changing to a higher power
motor (0.4 instead of 0.33 horsepower) and a slightly larger-diameter
pulley can increase the spin speed for top-loading clothes washers from
700 to 800 revolutions per minute, resulting in a lower RMC and a 25-
percent reduction in calculated drying energy. Id. NEEA specifically
recommended that DOE evaluate higher power motors and alternate gear
ratios to reduce RMC and drying energy for CCWs. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The RCW energy conservation standards DFR is available
online at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEEA also suggested that DOE include increased basket perforation
and a ribbed drum as technology options to reduce RMC. Id. NEEA
commented that increasing basket perforation could improve RMC, stating
that baskets with increased perforation allow more water to move out of
the textiles for a given period of time because the length of the
pathway for water to travel out of the textiles and the basket during
the spin process is shortened if the basket has more exit holes. Id.
NEEA also commented that a 2005 report found that clothes washers that
use a ribbed drum can improve RMC by 20 percent. NEEA stated that is
not aware of ribbed drum technology in the market. Id.
NEEA also recommended that DOE consider including using warmer
rinse water temperatures as a technology option to improve RMC. Id.
NEEA stated that because viscosity is lower with warmer water
temperatures (around 40 percent lower at 100 degrees Fahrenheit
(``[deg]F'') versus 60 [deg]F), water can be spun out more easily from
textiles that have a warm rinse. Id. NEEA added that while more hot
water heating energy may be incurred by a CCW with a warm rinse, the
improved water extraction may offset the hot water energy use. Id.
NEEA further suggested that the range of RMC values present in the
current market suggests that the costs to implement technologies that
improve water extraction must be relatively low
[[Page 71848]]
and thus are likely to be cost-effective. (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 6)
The Joint Commenters recommended that DOE investigate CCWs with
card readers that can allow for a discounted price for a cold cycle as
a technology option. (Joint Commenters, No. 4 at p. 3) The Joint
Commenters asserted that discounted cold cycle prices may influence
consumers to reduce hot water energy use when using coin-operated CCWs.
Id.
Regarding NEEA's recommendation to consider technologies that
improve water extraction to improve RMC, DOE has identified multiple
technology options specifically intended to reduce RMC. These include
hardware features that enable faster spin speeds (which include more
advanced motor technologies) and longer spin duration, as suggested.
Regarding the use of warm rinse to reduce RMC, DOE is not aware of
any CCWs that offer a warm rinse. DOE analysis suggests that the
additional water-heating energy that would be associated with a heated
rinse would offset the reduction in RMC (and associated drying energy)
resulting from the higher water temperature. The following illustrative
estimate demonstrates this likely offset in a representative top-
loading CCW.
First, DOE estimated the reduction in RMC that could be expected
from a warm rinse in comparison to a cold rinse. For this estimate, DOE
referenced the standard RMC values defined in Table 6.1 of appendix J3
\20\ to 10 CFR part 430, subpart B (``appendix J3''), which are used as
standardized reference points in generating correction factors for each
new manufactured lot of energy test cloth.\21\ The standard RMC values
defined for the 200 g-force, 4-minute extractor runs--which DOE testing
indicates would be most closely associated with the spin portion of a
baseline top-loading CCW wash cycle--are 43.1 percent for cloth that
has been soaked in cold (60 [deg]F) water, compared to 40.4 percent for
cloth soaked in warm (100 [deg]F) water--a difference of 2.7 RMC
percentage points. For a typical CCW with capacity of 3.25 ft\3\ and
the associated load sizes as defined by Table 5.1 of appendix J2, a
reduction in RMC of 2.7 percentage points would reduce the drying
energy component by around 0.03 kWh/cycle (using the equations
specified in sections 3.8 and 4.3 of appendix J2). For a rinse water
volume of around 14 gal--which would be typical for a baseline top-
loading CCW (see Table IV.6 of this document)--at an assumed warm rinse
temperature of 100 [deg]F (consistent with the temperature associated
with the assumed RMC values), using a warm rinse would increase water
heating energy by around 0.37 kWh/cycle (using the equations specified
in sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 of appendix J2). In this example, the
additional water-heating energy associated with a heated rinse (0.37
kWh/cycle) would far outweigh any efficiency improvement due to the
reduced RMC from the heated rinse (0.03 kWh/cycle), on a per-cycle
basis. For this reason, DOE has not considered warm rinse as a
technology option for improving the efficiency of CCWs as measured by
the DOE test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ As described in section 1 of appendix J3, the purpose of
appendix J3 is to evaluate the moisture absorption and retention
characteristics of a new lot of test cloth by measuring the RMC in a
standard extractor at a specified set of conditions. The results are
used to develop a set of coefficients that correlate the measured
RMC values of the new test cloth lot with a set of standard RMC
values established as an historical reference point. These
correction coefficients are applied to the RMC measurements
performed during testing according to appendix J1 or appendix J2,
ensuring that the final corrected RMC measurement for a clothes
washer remains independent of the test cloth lot used for testing.
\21\ The correction factors for each test cloth lot are applied
to the RMC measurement for the purpose of ensuring repeatable RMC
measurements among different lots of test cloth. As part of the test
cloth qualification process, bundles of wet cloth are spun in a
specialized extractor at various spin speeds (i.e., gravitational or
``g'' forces), time durations, and water temperatures, with the RMC
measured after each extractor run.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the referenced study that showed that a ribbed drum can
improve RMC results,\22\ DOE reviewed the study and has identified
areas of uncertainty that prevent DOE from including this technology at
this time; specifically:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Richter, Tim. Energy Efficiency Laundry Process. Prepared
for U.S. DOE by GE Global Research. 2005. doi:10.2172/842014.
Available at: www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/842014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is unclear from the study whether the ``percent RMC
reduction'' data represents reduction of ``RMC percentage points'' or
percent reduction of the RMC value, which itself is a percentage; e.g.,
reducing RMC from a value of 50 percent to 40 percent could be
described as either a 10-percent reduction in RMC percentage points, or
a 20-percent reduction in the RMC value.
No information is provided on the additional material or
tooling costs that would be associated with manufacturing a ribbed
stainless-steel basket. The report notes in section 3.3.8 that the
stainless-steel prototype baskets (which used a double-basket design)
worked well for testing but could not be used for mass production due
to the inefficient use of materials.
The report states in section 3.4 that the prototype ribbed
basket showed increased susceptibility to ``suds lock,'' that none of
the prototypes resulted in clear improvements in suds lock, and that
most of the suds lock solutions were difficult to envision in a
production application.
For these reasons, DOE did not include a ribbed drum design as a
technology option in this NOPD.
Regarding the Joint Commenters' recommendation to consider card
readers that can allow for a discounted price for a cold cycle as a
technology option, DOE considered temperature-differentiated pricing
controls as a design option in the analysis accompanying the December
2014 Final Rule. In chapter 5 of the technical support document
(``TSD'') accompanying the December 2014 Final Rule, DOE described that
its market analysis confirmed the availability of this feature on
multiple CCW models from multiple manufacturers.\23\ As described in
the TSD, DOE's current test procedure at appendix J2 uses a fixed set
of Temperature Use Factors (``TUFs''), which represent the percentage
of time an end-user would select each wash/rinse temperature selection
available on the clothes washer. Because the TUFs in the test procedure
are fixed, a CCW with temperature-differentiated pricing controls would
be tested the same way as an identical CCW without temperature-
differentiated pricing controls. Therefore, the energy savings of this
technology cannot be measured according to the conditions and methods
specified in the DOE clothes washer test procedure. Accordingly, DOE
did not analyze this technology option in its December 2014 Final Rule
analysis, and for these same reasons, DOE has not analyzed this as a
technology option for the current analysis. The Joint Commenters did
not provide, nor is DOE is aware of, any information regarding the
extent to which temperature-differentiated pricing controls alter the
end-user wash temperature selection frequencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The TSD for the December 2014 Final Rule is available at
docket number EERE-2012-BT-STD-0020. Available online at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2012-BT-STD-0020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, for this analysis, DOE considered the technology
options shown in Table IV.
[[Page 71849]]
Table IV.1--Commercial Clothes Washer Technology Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology option Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adaptive water fill.......... Use of advanced control technologies to
sense the size of the clothing load and
adjust the water level accordingly. This
technology option can overcome the
tendency of consumers to manually select
a water level greater than required for
a given load.
Advanced agitation concepts Replaces the standard agitator found in
for top-loading machines. traditional top-loading CCWs. The most
common implementation of this technology
is a rotating ``impeller'' wash plate at
the bottom of the drum.
Capacity increase............ Implementing a larger tub capacity can
contribute to improved efficiency
because a larger amount of clothing can
be washed using an incremental increase
in the quantity of water that is less
than the incremental increase in
capacity, therefore reducing the amount
of water and energy per pound of
clothing.
Higher spin speeds to reduce Faster spin speeds reduce RMC and thus
RMC. the drying energy component of MEFJ2.
Motor efficiency Replaces a single-speed or dual-speed
improvements, including capacitor-start induction motor and
direct-drive motors. mechanical transmission.
Ozonated laundering.......... Consists of a separate wall-mounted unit
that pumps ambient air through an ozone
generator, which is then directly
injected into the wash water. Once in
the water, the ozone reacts with
insoluble soils, making them soluble,
after which the mechanical action of the
washing separates the soils from the
fabric.
Polymer bead cleaning........ Uses the absorbent properties of nylon
polymer beads which are added to the
wash drum with a small amount of water
and detergent to loosen the dirt or
stains on the clothing. The polarity of
the nylon polymer attracts stains from
the clothing. At the end of the cycle,
the polymer beads are separated from the
clothing through an inner drum/outer
drum rotation process.
Spray rinse or similar water- Eliminates the need to completely immerse
reducing rinse technology. the clothing in water during the wash
and rinse phases of the cleaning cycle
by spraying rinse water into the drum
while the wash basket is rotating.
Thermostatically controlled Inlet valves that have the ability to
mixing valves. sense and adjust the hot and cold supply
water. This technology option achieves
energy savings by more accurately
controlling inlet water temperature for
hot and warm fills.
Water recirculation loop..... Reduces the amount of water used by the
CCW by re-using water out of the bottom
of the sump during certain parts of the
cycle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. 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 working prototypes will not
be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is
determined that mass production and reliable installation and servicing
of a technology in commercial products could not be achieved on the
scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the
projected compliance date of the standard, then that technology will
not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on equipment utility or equipment availability. If it
is determined that a technology would have significant adverse impact
on the utility of the equipment to significant subgroups of consumers
or would result in the unavailability of any covered equipment type
with performance characteristics (including reliability), features,
sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as
equipment generally available in the United States at the time, it will
not be considered further.
(4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a
technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety,
it will not be considered further.
(5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies. If a design option
utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to
achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be
considered further due to the potential for monopolistic concerns.
10 CFR 431.4; Sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b) of the Process Rule. 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.
AHAM and CLA commented that increasing cycle time in order to
achieve higher levels of efficiency is not a viable option for
increasing CCW efficiency. (AHAM and CLA, No. 5 at p. 2) \24\ AHAM and
CLA stated that end users of CCWs want to wash as much laundry as they
can in as little time as possible, and that they also prefer to limit
the number of loads or trips per week. Id. AHAM and CLA also asserted
commercial laundry operators' need to maximize laundry throughput. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Whirlpool and GEA commented that they support AHAM's
comments on the July 2020 RFI and incorporate them into their own
comments by reference. Throughout this NOPD, reference to AHAM's
written comments (document number 5 in the docket) should be
considered reflective of Whirlpool and GEA's positions as well.
(Whirlpool, No. 3 at p. 1; GEA, No. 6 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHAM and CLA also commented that DOE should consider CCW durability
and serviceability in its analysis of whether to propose a
determination not to amend energy conservation standards or to engage
in a full rulemaking analysis to assess possible amended standards. Id.
AHAM and CLA stated that CCW components need to be robust and durable
enough to withstand the higher number and frequency of cycles
anticipated for CCWs compared to domestic applications, and that some
of the technology options employed in RCWs (e.g., direct drive motors)
may not be suitable for CCWs. Id.) AHAM and CLA also stated that owner/
operators require low machine down-time for malfunctions and repairs,
which requires readily-available parts and easy serviceability. Id.
AHAM and CLA further stated that for operators who have hundreds or
thousands of machines, consistency of design and interchangeability of
parts is also an important consideration. Id. AHAM and CLA asserted
that more stringent energy conservation standards, depending on the
level, could threaten the ability of manufacturers to use the same or
similar parts, and could potentially increase service complexity and
cost. Id.
[[Page 71850]]
AHAM and CLA recommended that DOE consider how changing water
levels in order to increase efficiency could affect end user
expectations. (AHAM and CLA, No. 5 at p. 3) According to AHAM and CLA,
end users want to see what they believe is a sufficient amount of water
to wash their clothes, and that even with current energy conservation
standards, manufacturers sometimes hear complaints from consumers about
the water levels. Id. AHAM and CLA stated that even if smaller load
sizes needed to be recommended due to decreased water levels as a
result of more stringent standards, users may still wash larger loads,
particularly if the users perceive available capacity. Id.
AHAM and CLA commented that if it were necessary to further
decrease wash temperatures to meet more stringent standards (which AHAM
and CLA asserted would make it difficult to clean the clothes with
today's detergents), the result would likely be decreased performance
for the user and increased complaints to operators. Id. AHAM and CLA
also stated that a further decrease in water temperatures may also lead
to customers re-running their wash cycles, which would prevent the
energy and water savings from amended standards from being fully
realized. Id.
AHAM and CLA commented that while increasing drum volume is one of
the key technology options for improving efficiency, the ability to
increase capacity for CCWs is extremely limited. (AHAM and CLA, No. 5
at pp. 2-3) AHAM and CLA believe that it may not be possible to further
increase the size of the drum to comply with more stringent standards
without increasing the cabinet size. Id. AHAM and CLA commented that
operators need to maximize the return on capital across their base of
machines, and they do this by having as many available CCWs as possible
in their space. Id. AHAM and CLA stated that increasing the cabinet
size would result in decreased revenues for commercial operators, since
fewer CCWs could fit into the same space. Id. AHAM and CLA stated that
increasing cabinet size would also result in retooling, which would
significantly increase costs. Id. AHAM and CLA also commented that
increased capacity could also reduce the number of wash loads, thereby
resulting in lost revenue to owner/operators. Id.
Taking into considerations these comments, as well as previous
research and analysis from the December 2014 Final Rule, DOE applied
the screening criteria specified above to the technology options listed
in Table IV.1 of this NOPD to either retain or eliminate each
technology from the screening analysis. The rationale for either
screening out or retaining each technology option considered in this
analysis is detailed in the following sections.
1. Screened-Out Technologies
Based on DOE's research and consideration of comments received from
interested parties, DOE screened out the technology options on the
basis of the EPCA criteria shown in Table IV.2.
Table IV.2--Commercial Clothes Washer Screening Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA criteria (X = basis for screening out)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impacts on
Technology option Practicability equipment Adverse Unique-
Technological to install, utility or impacts on pathway
feasibility manufacture, equipment health or proprietary
and service availability safety technologies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capacity increase................... ............... X X ............ ............
Higher spin speeds to reduce RMC.... ............... ............... X ............ ............
Ozonated laundering................. ............... X ............ ............ ............
Polymer bead cleaning............... ............... X ............ ............ X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Remaining Technologies
After reviewing each technology, DOE did not screen out the
following technology options and considers them as design options in
the engineering analysis:
(1) Adaptive water fill controls
(2) Advance agitation concepts for top-loading machines
(3) Motor efficiency improvements including direct-drive motors
(4) Spray rinse or similar water-reducing rinse technology
(5) Thermostatically controlled mixing valves
(6) Water recirculation loop
DOE determined that these technology options are technologically
feasible because they are being used in commercially available
equipment or working prototypes. DOE also finds that all of the
remaining technology options meet the other screening criteria (i.e.,
practicable to manufacture, install, and service and do not result in
adverse impacts on consumer utility, equipment availability, health, or
safety).
D. Engineering Analysis
The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the
relationship between the efficiency and cost of CCWs. 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 equipment cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the
``cost analysis''). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency
equipment, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations
not eliminated by the screening analysis. For each equipment class, DOE
estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the
equipment 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. For this NOPD, DOE did not conduct the
cost portion of the analysis, as discussed in section V.D of this
document, having initially concluded that the maximum technologically
feasible energy savings would not result in a significant conservation
of energy.
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 equipment (in other words, based on
the range of efficiencies and efficiency level ``clusters'' that
already exist on the market). Using the design option
[[Page 71851]]
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 equipment on
the market) may be extended using the design option approach to
interpolate to define ``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).
In this proposed determination, DOE is adopting an efficiency-level
approach and based its efficiency levels on clusters observed in the
market.
1. Baseline Efficiency
For each equipment 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 equipment class represents the characteristics
of equipment 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 this NOPD, DOE used the current energy conservation standards
for CCWs, presented in Table IV.3, as the baseline efficiency level for
each equipment class.
Table IV.3--Baseline Efficiency Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum MEFJ2
(ft\3\/kWh/ Maximum IWF
Equipment class cycle) (gal/ft\3\/
cycle)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-Loading............................. 1.35 8.8
Front-Loading........................... 2.00 4.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Higher Efficiency Levels
As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level
is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. DOE
also defines a ``max-tech'' efficiency level to represent the maximum
possible efficiency for a given equipment.
The CA IOUs recommended that DOE establish new max-tech standard
levels based on up-to-date technical feasibility. (CA IOUs, No. 7 at
pp. 3-5) The CA IOUs cited certification data provided in DOE's
Compliance Certification Management System (``CCMS'') database \25\
(which they accessed on July 23, 2020) indicating that a large
percentage of top-loading and front-loading CCWs meet or exceed the
max-tech levels defined in the 2014 rulemaking analysis. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ The Department of Energy's Compliance Certification
Management System database for CCWs is available online at
www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/CCMS-4-Clothes_Washers_-_Commercial.html#q=Product_Group_s%3A%22Clothes%20Washers%20-%20Commercial%22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Joint Commenters commented that data on available models in
DOE's CCMS database indicates a significant potential to improve the
efficiency of CCWs. (Joint Commenters, No. 4 at pp. 1-3) The Joint
Commenters summarized data from the CCMS database (which they accessed
on September 11, 2020) indicating a range of both top-loading and
front-loading CCWs that meet or exceed the 2014 DOE max-tech levels.
Id. The Joint Commenters concluded that these data indicate that there
is significant potential to improve the efficiency of CCWs. Id.
NEEA commented that, based on its analysis of models in the CCMS
database, improving the efficiency of all CCWs to the most efficient
technologies available on the market could lead to site energy savings
of 19 percent in active mode and an additional 2 percent in standby
mode. (NEEA, No. 8 at pp. 2-3) NEEA stated that many technologies are
available to cost-effectively reduce standby mode energy use. (NEEA,
No. 8 at pp. 5-6) NEEA provided specific technology examples of
improved light emitting diode (``LED'') efficacy, improved
transformers, resonant switching, synchronous rectification, advanced
core materials, and higher internal system voltage for low-voltage
communication and control. Id.
DOE is aware that the CCMS database previously contained basic
models of CCWs that appeared to have efficiency levels higher than the
max-tech level described in this document. At the time of publication
of the July 2020 RFI, the CCMS database contained equipment ratings for
certain CCW basic models that reflected MEF values as measured under
appendix J1, in addition to equipment ratings for other CCW basic
models that reflected MEFJ2 values as measured under
appendix J2.\26\ As shown in the December 2014 Final Rule, for a given
appendix J2 MEFJ2 efficiency level, the equivalent appendix
J1 MEF value is a substantively higher number. 79 FR 74492, 74499-
74500. For this reason, basic models in CCMS that were rated using MEF
appeared to be more efficient than basic models rated using
MEFJ2, despite being equally or less efficient than the
MEFJ2-rated basic models when tested equivalently. 79 FR
74492, 74499-74500. Since the July 2020 RFI, the CCMS database has been
updated to include only basic models certified with MEFJ2
values. For this analysis, DOE analyzed only basic models of CCWs rated
using appendix J2 (i.e., with MEFJ2 values). At the time of
this analysis, models rated using appendix J2 had MEFJ2
values ranging from 1.35 to 1.60 for top-loading CCWs and from 2.00 to
2.30 for front-loading CCWs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ DOE understands that certain basic models rated using
appendix J1 MEF values are still in inventory and being sold, but
were manufactured prior to January 1, 2018. The current CCW energy
conservation standards based on MEFJ2 apply to all CCWs
manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on or after
January 1, 2018. 79 FR 74492, 74493.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted, EPCA requires that any new or amended energy conservation
standard be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that is technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) For this NOPD, DOE has considered the maximum
possible efficiency to correspond to the maximum efficiency level
currently available on the market for each equipment class. For CCWs,
DOE is unable to conclude that theoretical efficiency levels higher
than the maximum currently available on the market would represent
commercially viable (i.e., technologically feasible) equipment, because
DOE is unable to determine the impact that theoretical
[[Page 71852]]
higher efficiency levels would have on consumer-relevant aspects of
equipment performance \27\ (such as cleaning performance, cycle time,
etc.) and equipment reliability.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ As an extreme example, DOE could assume that a CCW could
reduce its water consumption to near zero, but such equipment would
not be viable for washing clothing.
\28\ As an example, DOE could assume that a CCW could implement
significantly faster spin speeds, but at the risk of more frequent
or severe damage to internal bearings, requiring more frequent
repairs or replacement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this NOPD, DOE considered the efficiency levels listed in Table
IV.4.
Table IV.4--Efficiency Levels Considered for Commercial Clothes Washers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum MEFJ2
(ft\3\/kWh/ Maximum IWF
Equipment class Efficiency level cycle) (gal/cycle/
ft\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-Loading................................... Baseline........................ 1.35 8.80
1............................... 1.60 8.50
2............................... 1.60 7.80
3 (Max Tech).................... 1.60 5.50
Front-Loading................................. Baseline........................ 2.00 4.10
1............................... 2.20 4.00
2 (Max Tech).................... 2.30 3.80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Energy and Water Use Analysis
The purpose of the energy and water use analysis is to determine
the annual energy and water consumption of CCWs at different
efficiencies in representative U.S. multi-family residences and
commercial coin-operated laundromats, and to assess the energy and
water savings potential of increased CCW efficiency. The energy and
water use analysis estimates the range of energy and water use of CCWs
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
that could result from adoption of amended or new standards.
The energy analysis for this NOPD consists of three related parts--
the machine energy use, the drying energy use, and the water-heating
energy use. DOE used relevant data from the December 2014 Final Rule
TSD and product literature for CCWs currently available on the market
to estimate the per-cycle machine and drying energy use that would be
associated with each efficiency level as measured by the appendix J2
test procedure.\29\ To determine the per-cycle water-heating energy
use, DOE first determined the total per-cycle energy use (the clothes
container volume divided by the MEFJ2) and then subtracted
it from the per-cycle drying and machine energy use. DOE determined
per-cycle water consumption by multiplying the IWF by the defined
capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ The TSD for the December 2014 Final Rule is available at
docket number EERE-2012-BT-STD-0020. Available online at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2012-BT-STD-0020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The per-cycle energy and water use for top-loading and front-
loading CCWs associated with each efficiency level are presented in
Table IV.5 and Table IV.6, respectively.
Table IV.5--Per-Cycle Energy and Water Use for Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEFJ2 (ft\3\/ Energy breakdown (kWh/cycle) Water
Efficiency level kWh/cycle) IWF (gal/ft\3\/ Capacity RMC (%) ------------------------------------------------ consumption
cycle) (ft\3\) Machine Hot water Drying (gal/cycle)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................................ 1.35 8.8 3.25 48 0.21 0.59 1.61 28.6
EL 1............................................................ 1.60 8.5 3.25 47 0.10 0.36 1.57 27.6
EL 2............................................................ 1.60 7.8 3.25 47 0.10 0.36 1.57 25.4
EL 3 (Max Tech)................................................. 1.60 5.5 3.25 47 0.10 0.36 1.57 17.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.6--Per-Cycle Energy and Water Use for Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEFJ2 (ft\3\/ Energy breakdown (kWh/cycle) Water
Efficiency level kWh/cycle) IWF (gal/ft\3\/ Capacity RMC (%) ------------------------------------------------ consumption
cycle) (ft\3\) Machine Hot water Drying (gal/cycle)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................................ 2.00 4.1 3.25 38 0.10 0.28 1.24 13.4
EL 1............................................................ 2.20 4.0 3.25 36 0.10 0.21 1.17 13.0
EL 2 (Max Tech)................................................. 2.30 3.8 3.25 34 0.10 0.21 1.10 12.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE determined the average annual energy and water consumption by
multiplying the per-cycle energy and water consumption by the number of
cycles per year. For this NOPD, DOE relied on the same research studies
as described in chapter 7 of the December 2014 Final Rule TSD to arrive
at a range of annual usage cycles. The average values are 1,083 and
1,479 for multi-family and laundromat applications, respectively. The
data sources that informed these usage numbers include Multi-Housing
Laundry Association (``MLA'') and the CLA, Southern California Edison,
and San Diego Gas and Electric, as well as research sponsored by the
MLA and the CLA. Chapter 7 of the December 2014 Final Rule TSD
describes these sources in detail.\30\ DOE is not aware of more recent
studies that provide additional data on the average cycles for the
considered applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ The TSD for the December 2014 Final Rule is available at
docket number EERE-2012-BT-STD-0020. Available online at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2012-BT-STD-0020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.7 summarizes the average annual energy and water
consumption for CCWs.
[[Page 71853]]
Table IV.7--Average Annual Energy and Water Use for Commercial Clothes Washers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual energy use
MEF (ft\3\/kWh/ IMF (gal/cycle/ Container -------------------------------- Annual water
Equipment class Efficiency level cycle) ft\3\) volume (ft\3\) RMC (%) Electrical Gas (MMBtu/ (1000 gal)
(kWh/yr) yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-Loading................................... Baseline........................ 1.35 8.80 3.25 48 961 7.05 32.47
1............................... 1.60 8.50 3.25 47 752 6.04 31.36
2............................... 1.60 7.80 3.25 47 752 6.04 28.78
3 (Max Tech).................... 1.60 5.50 3.25 47 752 6.04 20.29
Front-Loading................................. Baseline........................ 2.00 4.10 3.25 38 618 4.77 15.24
1............................... 2.20 4.00 3.25 36 573 4.26 14.76
2 (Max Tech).................... 2.30 3.80 3.25 35 546 4.08 14.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEEA encouraged DOE to quantify the energy and water use and
savings of CCWs installed in on-premise laundries (``OPLs''). (NEEA,
No. 8 at p. 8) NEEA stated that some CCWs covered by DOE's current
definition are installed as non-vending OPL units in facilities such as
spas, hair salons, assisted living centers, and fire stations, and used
for laundering various textiles (e.g., towels, sheets, and uniforms).
Id. NEEA cited the 2014 Final Rule, in which DOE did not evaluate the
energy and water use and savings of equipment installed in OPLs due to
a lack of data. Id. NEEA noted that since 2014, the California Energy
Commission (``CEC'') has published data on the installed stock and duty
cycle of OPL clothes dryers, which NEEA asserts can be assumed to be
similar to clothes washers in the same facility. Id. Citing the CEC
research, NEEA stated that the number of OPL CCWs installed is smaller
than the total number of CCWs in multi-family laundries and
laundromats, but that the number of cycles per day in an OPL is much
higher than in multi-family laundries or laundromats. Id.
DOE reviewed CEC's 2017 study \31\ and found the scope of the study
is only focused on OPL applications in the state of California. DOE
acknowledges the benefit of including the number of cycles per day from
OPL application; however, a larger study with greater geographic area
would be more applicable, as it would be more representative as to the
variability in annual energy and water consumption in different
applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ TRC Energy Services, On-Premises Laundromat Dryers Market
Survey, Docket Number: 17-AAER-01 (TN#:216326), 03/02/2017.
efiling.energy.ca.gov/Lists/DocketLog.aspx?docketnumber=17-AAER-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CA IOUs recommended that DOE investigate the prevalence of
larger-capacity units used in multi-housing laundries and OPL
facilities, such as in hotels, health care, universities, and prisons.
(CA IOUs, No. 7 at pp. 2-3) The CA IOUs stated that these represent
significant segments of the CCW market, and cited a 2009 DOE report on
commercial building appliances that estimated 300,000 to 600,000 multi-
housing laundries and 60,000 OPL facilities in the United States,
compared to 35,000 laundromats. Id.
DOE acknowledges the trend and presence of larger-capacity units in
multi-housing laundry and OPL facilities in hotels, healthcare
establishments and universities. Since larger-capacity units are
outside the scope for this NOPD, DOE focused its analysis on CCW units
that meet the criteria of horizontal-axis clothes washers not more than
3.5 ft\3\ in volume and vertical-axis clothes washers not more than 4.0
ft\3\ in volume.
F. Shipments Analysis
DOE uses projections of annual equipment shipments between 2024 and
2053 to calculate the national energy and water savings of potential
amended or new energy conservation standards on energy and water
use.\32\ The shipments model takes an accounting approach in tracking
market shares of each equipment class and the vintage of units in the
stock. Stock accounting uses equipment shipments as inputs to estimate
the age distribution of in-service equipment stocks for all years. The
age distribution of in-service equipment stocks is a key input to
calculations of both the NES and national water savings (``NWS'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as a proxy for
national sales, as aggregate data on sales are lacking. In general,
one would expect a close correspondence between shipments and sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this NOPD, DOE used the same shipments model that was performed
for the December 2014 Final Rule.\33\ DOE used historical shipments
data to calibrate its shipments model. The historical shipments data
were established using the following sources: (1) ENERGY STAR clothes
washer shipments in commercial use applications for the period 2014-
2019 \34\ and (2) data from the December 2014 Final Rule for the period
1972-2013. DOE projected CCW shipments (for both equipment classes) for
the new construction and replacement markets, and also accounted for
non-replacement of retired units. For the new construction market, DOE
assumed shipments are driven solely by multi-family construction
starts, using projections of new housing starts from the DOE Energy
Information Administration (``EIA'') Annual Energy Outlook (``AEO'')
2021.\35\ Implicit in this assumption is the fact that a certain
percentage of multi-family residents will need to wash their laundry in
either a common-area laundry facility (within the multi-family
building) or a laundromat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ The shipments model performed for the December 2014 Final
Rule can be found in the TSD at docket number EERE-2012-BT-STD-0020.
Available online at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2012-BT-STD-0020-0017.
\34\ ENERGY STAR: ENERGY STAR Unit Shipment and Market
Penetration Report Calendar Year 2014-2019 Summary.
www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/2019%20Unit%20Shipment%20Data%20Summary%20Report.pdf.
\35\ U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information
Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2021 with Projections to 2050,
February 3, 2021. Washington, DC. DOE/EIA-0383(2021). www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For existing buildings replacing broken equipment, the shipments
model uses a stock accounting framework. Given the equipment entering
the stock in each year and a retirement function, the model predicts
how many units reach the end of their lifetime in each year. DOE
typically refers to new shipments intended to replace retired units as
``replacement'' shipments. Such shipments are usually the largest part
of total shipments.
DOE allocated shipments to each of the two equipment classes based
on the current market share of each class. Based on ENERGY STAR 2019
shipments data, DOE estimated that top-loading CCWs comprise 66 percent
of the market while front-loading CCWs comprise 34 percent. DOE
implemented frozen market share for the projection period (2024-2053)
for both the no-new-standards case and potential efficiency standards
levels.
To estimate shipments under potential efficiency standards levels,
DOE applied a default price elasticity of demand of zero for this
equipment
[[Page 71854]]
because DOE believes CCWs to be highly price-inelastic, meaning that
any cost and price increases resulting from efficiency standards are
unlikely to substantially affect the quantity of CCWs purchased.
G. National Energy and Water Savings Analysis
The national energy and water savings (``NEWS'') analysis assesses
the NES and the NWS from a national perspective of total consumer
savings that would be expected to result from new or amended standards
at specific efficiency levels.\36\ (``Consumer'' in this context refers
to consumers of the equipment being regulated.) DOE calculates the NES
and NWS for the potential standards levels considered based on
projections of annual equipment shipments, along with the annual energy
and water consumption from the energy and water use analysis. For the
present analysis, DOE projected the energy and water savings over the
lifetime of CCWs sold from 2024 through 2053.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states and
Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE evaluates the effects of new or amended standards by comparing
a case without such standards with standards-case projections. The no-
new-standards case characterizes energy and water use for each
equipment class in the absence of new or amended energy conservation
standards. For this projection, DOE considers historical trends in
efficiency and various forces that are likely to affect the mix of
efficiencies over time. DOE compares the no-new-standards case with
projections characterizing the market for each equipment class if DOE
adopted new or amended standards at specific efficiency levels (i.e.,
the ELs or standards cases) for that class. For the standards cases,
DOE considers how a given standard would likely affect the market
shares of equipment with efficiencies greater than the standard.
Table IV.8 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NEWS
analysis for the NOPD. Discussion of these inputs and methods follows
the table.
Table IV.8--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the National Energy and
Water Savings Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs Method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments......................... Annual shipments from shipments
model.
Modeled Compliance Date of 2024.
Standard.
Efficiency Trends................. No-new-standards case: Based on
current market distribution of
efficiencies with a zero growth in
efficiency scenario for the
analysis period.
Standards cases: Based on a ``roll-
up'' scenario to roll-up units to
meet the standard level.
Annual Energy and water Annual weighted-average values are a
Consumption per Unit. function of energy and water use at
each EL.
Energy Site-to-Primary and Full A time-series conversion factor
Fuel Cycle Conversion. based on AEO 2021.
Discount Rate..................... 3 percent and 7 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Equipment Efficiency Trends
A key component of the NEWS analysis is the trend in energy
efficiency projected for the no-new-standards case and each of the
standards cases.
DOE estimated the current energy and water efficiency distribution
for CCWs using model counts from DOE's CCMS database.\37\ The estimated
market shares for the no-new-standards case for CCWs are shown in Table
IV.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ U.S. Department of Energy, Compliance Certification
Database, Last accessed July, 2021. www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/#q=Product_Group_s%3A*.
Table IV.9--Efficiency Distributions: No-New-Standards Case Market Shares in 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-loading Front-loading
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEFJ2 (ft\3\/ MEFJ2 (ft\3\/
Efficiency level kWh/cyc) IWF (gal/cyc/ Market share Efficiency level kWh/cyc) IWF (gal/cyc/ Market share
ft\3\) (%) ft\3\) (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.......................... 1.35 8.8 40.9 Baseline............ 2.00 4.1 1.9
1................................. 1.60 8.5 4.5 1................... 2.20 4.0 89.7
2................................. 1.60 7.8 40.9 2 (Max Tech)........ 2.30 3.8 8.4
3 (Max Tech)...................... 1.60 5.5 13.6 .................... .............. .............. ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To project the future efficiency trend under the no-new-standards
case during the analysis period, DOE followed the same methodology
developed for the December 2014 Final Rule and assumed that efficiency
would remain constant at the 2020 levels.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ DOE's methodology developed for the December 2014 Final
Rule can be found in the TSD available at docket number EERE-2012-
BT-STD-0020. Available online at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2012-BT-STD-0020-0017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the standards cases, DOE used a ``roll-up'' scenario to
establish the shipment-weighted efficiency for the year that standards
are assumed to become effective (2024). In this scenario, the market
shares of equipment in the no-new-standards case that do not meet the
standard under consideration would ``roll up'' to meet the new standard
level, and the market share of equipment above the standard would
remain unchanged. In the standards cases, the efficiency distribution
remains constant at the 2020 levels for the analysis period.
2. National Energy and Water Savings
The NEWS analysis involves a comparison of national energy and
water consumption of the considered equipment between each potential
standards case (i.e., EL) and the case with no new or amended energy
conservation standards. DOE calculated the national energy and water
consumption by multiplying the number of units (stock) of each
equipment (by vintage or age) by the unit energy and water consumption
(also by vintage). DOE calculated annual NES and NWS based on the
difference in national energy and water consumption for the no-new-
standards case and for each higher efficiency standards case. DOE
estimated energy
[[Page 71855]]
consumption and savings based on site energy and converted the
electricity consumption and savings to primary energy (i.e., the energy
consumed by power plants to generate site electricity) using annual
conversion factors derived from AEO 2021. Cumulative energy and water
savings are the sum of the NES and NWS for each year over the timeframe
of the analysis.
In 2011, in response to the recommendations of a committee on
``Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy
Efficiency Standards'' appointed by the National Academy of Sciences,
DOE announced its intention to use FFC measures of energy use and
greenhouse gas and other emissions in the NIA and emissions analyses
included in future energy conservation standards rulemakings. 76 FR
51281 (Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the approaches discussed in the
August 18, 2011 notice, DOE published a statement of amended policy in
which DOE explained its determination that EIA's National Energy
Modeling System (``NEMS'') is the most appropriate tool for its FFC
analysis and its intention to use NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 49701
(Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public domain, multi-sector, partial
equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector \39\ that EIA uses to
prepare its AEO. The FFC factors incorporate losses in production, and
delivery in the case of natural gas (including fugitive emissions) and
additional energy used to produce and deliver the various fuels used by
power plants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ For more information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy
Modeling System: An Overview 2009, DOE/EIA-0581(2009), October 2009.
Available at www.eia.gov/analysis/pdfpages/0581(2009)index.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this NOPD analysis, DOE reports the FFC energy savings in its
NES analysis using inputs from AEO 2021.
H. Further Considerations
In addition to the analysis conducted as required under the 6-year
look-back (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6395(m)(1)(A)), DOE considered
the estimated impacts of amended energy conservation standards on
manufacturers of CCWs.
DOE conducted a manufacturer impact analysis for the December 2014
Final Rule. DOE understands that key characterizations and conclusions
from that analysis to still be relevant to the CCW industry. Notably,
two manufacturers continue to hold over 90 percent of the market share
for the covered equipment. The smaller manufacturer, with annual
revenues of approximately $570 million, is a low-volume manufacturer
(``LVM'') that specializes in CCWs. The larger manufacturer, with
annual revenues of $19 billion, is a diversified appliance manufacturer
that produces a range of kitchen and laundry appliances.
In the December 2014 Final Rule, DOE raised concerns about
disproportionate impacts between the LVM and the larger manufacturer.
In particular, the LVM produced clothes washers at volumes that were
two orders of magnitude smaller than its major competitor. The
opportunity for the LVM to recoup upfront investments in product
development was substantially smaller than its competitor. Similarly,
depreciated manufacturing capital could only be spread across a
disproportionately lower volume of shipments, contributing to higher
per-unit production costs. In particular, an increase in amended
standards beyond the finalized energy conservation standard levels
(i.e., the current standards for CCWs) for top-loading units had the
potential for strong disproportionate impacts, with the potential for
the LVM to leave the market. 79 FR 74492, 74514, 74516, 74527-74528,
74535.
In reviewing the current industry, DOE finds that the conditions
described in the December 2014 Final Rule continue to persist. The
smaller manufacturer continues to be a LVM with production volumes of
clothes washers that are at least an order of magnitude smaller than
for the primary competitor. The LVM continues to sell top-loading CCWs
only at the baseline efficiency level, and top-loading CCWs continue to
represent the large majority of the market for CCWs. The results of NES
and NWS analyses, summarized in Table V.2 in section V.C of this
document, indicate that the top-loading CCW equipment class provides
significantly greater potential energy and water savings opportunity
than the front-loading CCW equipment class. A change in standards for
the top-loading equipment class would require product investments and
capital expenditures that disproportionately impact the LVM, which
operates at lower production volumes, procures components in smaller
quantities, and has less access to capital than the large, more
diversified competitor.
NEEA commented that updating the CCW standard would likely benefit
small business owners and low-income consumers. NEEA commented that
households that use a centralized laundry facility are more likely to
be low-income than those that maintain an RCW within their dwelling.
NEEA also commented that high utility costs impact rates charged to
users of laundromats and multi-family laundries, leading to higher per-
cycle cost to wash a load. (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 7).
DOE acknowledges that amending the CCW standards could benefit
consumers, including small business owners and low-income consumers.
DOE has not, however, conducted a consumer impacts analysis for the
present rulemaking because it has tentatively determined that
significant and disproportionate impacts to the LVM would outweigh the
benefits of more stringent standards with respect to national energy
and water savings (see section V.F of this document).
V. Conclusions
The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses
with respect to the considered energy conservation standards for CCWs.
It addresses the efficiency levels examined by DOE and the projected
impacts of each of these levels.
A. General Comments From Interested Parties
AHAM and CLA stated that amended energy standards for CCWs are not
justified and are skeptical that amended standards for CCWs would meet
the threshold for significant energy savings in the Process Rule. (AHAM
and CLA, No. 5 at pp. 1-2) AHAM and CLA commented that it is not clear
that an amended energy standard would be technologically feasible or
economically justified--especially given the design challenges in
further improving energy efficiency in clothes washers. (AHAM and CLA,
No. 5 at p. 3) AHAM and CLA stated that the priorities identified
within the Department's Regulatory Agenda represent a greater
opportunity for improvements, better allocation of DOE and stakeholder
resources, and are most likely to confer substantial benefits to
consumers and the nation. Id.
Whirlpool commented that DOE should issue a no-new-standards
determination for CCWs. (Whirlpool, No. 3 at p. 1) Whirlpool stated
that amended energy conservation standards would not be economically
justified due to the challenges of further increasing efficiency
(including owner and operator needs, durability requirements, capacity,
water levels, and cycle length). Id. Whirlpool further commented that
it does not believe that amended energy conservation standards would
provide an additional 0.3 quads of site energy savings or an additional
10-percent reduction in site energy use over a 30-year period. Id.
Whirlpool stated that the industry is heavily weighted
[[Page 71856]]
towards top-loading CCW shipments, and that achieving an additional 10-
percent reduction in site energy use will not be technologically
feasible or cost effective. For these reasons, Whirlpool concludes that
DOE should propose a no-new-standards determination. Id.
GEA suggested that DOE should issue a no-new-standards
determination for CCWs because market and technology conditions have
not changed since the most recent rulemakings for CCWs, as shown in the
early assessment RFI. (GEA, No. 6 at p. 2)
The following sections summarize DOE's preliminary conclusions
regarding technological feasibility, energy savings potential, cost-
effectiveness, and further considerations regarding potential amended
standards for CCWs.
B. Technological Feasibility
EPCA mandates that DOE consider whether amended energy conservation
standards for CCWs would be technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(B)) DOE has
tentatively determined that there are technology options that would
improve the efficiency of CCWs. These technology options are being used
in commercially available CCWs and therefore are technologically
feasible. (See section IV.C.2 of this document for further
information.) Hence, DOE has tentatively determined that amended energy
conservation standards for CCWs are technologically feasible.
C. Significant Conservation of Energy
EPCA also mandates that DOE consider whether amended energy
conservation standards for CCWs would result in significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and
42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(A))
To estimate the energy and water savings attributable to potential
amended standards for CCWs, DOE compared their energy and water
consumption under the no-new-standards case to their anticipated energy
consumption under each potential standard level (``PSLs''). The savings
are measured over the entire lifetime of equipment purchased in the 30-
year period that begins in the year of anticipated compliance with
amended standards (2024-2053).
DOE analyzed the energy and water savings of three PSLs for CCWs
(see Table V.1). The PSLs were derived from the efficiency levels for
CCWs that DOE developed in the engineering analysis. For this NOPD, PSL
1 represents the efficiency level above the baseline for both equipment
classes. PSL 2 is configured with EL 2 for top-loading CCWs and the
max-tech level (EL 2) for front-loading CCWs. PSL 3 represents the max-
tech level for both equipment classes.
Table V.1--Potential Standard Levels for CCWs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-loading Front-loading
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSL MEFJ2 (ft\3\/kWh/ IWF (gal/cycle/ MEFJ2 (ft\3\/kWh/ IWF (gal/cycle/
Efficiency Level cycle) ft\3\) Efficiency level cycle) ft\3\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 1................. 1.60.............. 8.50.............. 1................. 2.20.............. 4.00
2............................... 2................. 1.60.............. 7.80.............. 2 (Max Tech)...... 2.30.............. 3.80
3............................... 3 (Max Tech)...... 1.60.............. 5.50.............. 2 (Max Tech)...... 2.30.............. 3.80
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.2 presents DOE's projections of the NES and NWS for each
PSL considered for CCWs.
Table V.2--Cumulative National Energy and Water Savings for Commercial Clothes Washers
[2024-2053]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential standard level
Energy and water savings Product class -----------------------------------------------
1 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site energy savings (quads)........... Front-Loading........... 0.00 0.01 0.01
Top-Loading............. 0.03 0.03 0.03
Total................... 0.03 0.04 0.04
Primary energy savings (quads)........ Front-Loading........... 0.00 0.01 0.01
Top-Loading............. 0.05 0.05 0.05
Total................... 0.05 0.06 0.06
FFC energy savings (quads)............ Front-Loading........... 0.00 0.01 0.01
Top-Loading............. 0.05 0.05 0.05
Total................... 0.06 0.06 0.06
Water savings (trillion gallons)...... Front-Loading........... 0.00 0.02 0.02
Top-Loading............. 0.02 0.07 0.39
Total................... 0.02 0.09 0.41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimates that amended standards for CCWs would result in
energy savings of 0.06 quads at PSL 3, the max-tech level.
D. Cost-Effectiveness
DOE analysis tentatively indicates that the market and the
manufacturer circumstances are similar to those found when DOE last
evaluated amended energy conservation standards for CCWs during the
December 2014 Final Rule. In particular, the product offerings and
technology options and associated costs have not changed substantively
since the previous analysis. As stated and as described further in the
following sections, DOE has tentatively determined that amended
standards for
[[Page 71857]]
CCWs would not be economically justified at levels above the current
standard level because the benefits of more stringent standards would
not outweigh the burdens.
E. Further Considerations
In the December 2014 Final Rule, DOE rejected higher standards,
finding that an increase in standards beyond the adopted level would
lead to disproportionate impacts on the LVM. 79 FR 74492, 74535. The
LVM primarily sold top-loading CCWs and produced those units only at
the baseline efficiency level. The company's production volume of CCWs
was significantly lower than its major competitor's production volume.
An increase in standards to max-tech would have required significant
investment by the LVM, with the potential need for ``greenfield''
factories or a change in business model that relies on sourcing or
foreign production. Id. at 79 FR 74527. In contrast, the LVM's major
competitor was orders of magnitude larger in terms of head count,
revenue, and product shipments. The major competitor already produced
units at the max-tech level for top-loading units. Thus, for the major
competitor, there was no conversion cost burden associated with higher
standards.
F. Summary
DOE has tentatively determined that energy conservation standards
for CCWs do not need to be amended.
DOE rejected higher TSLs during the previous CCW energy
conservation standards rulemaking due to significant and
disproportionate impacts to the LVM, which has large market share in
the CCW industry. DOE analysis indicates that the market and the
manufacturer circumstances are similar to those found when DOE last
evaluated amended energy conservation standards for CCWs during the
December 2014 Final Rule. In particular, the product offerings and
technology options and associated costs have not changed substantively
since the previous analysis. As such, DOE believes that amended energy
conservation standards for CCWs would not be economically justified at
levels above the current standard level because the benefits of more
stringent standards would not outweigh the burdens. Therefore, DOE has
tentatively determined not to amend the CCW energy conservation
standards.
DOE will consider all comments received on this proposed
determination in issuing any final determination.
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
This proposed determination has been determined to be not
significant for purposes of Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866,
``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). As a
result, the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') did not review
this proposed determination.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'')
for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless
the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its
procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's website (www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
DOE reviewed this proposed determination under the provisions of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures
published on February 19, 2003. DOE has tentatively determined that
current standards for CCWs do not need to be amended. Because DOE is
proposing not to amend standards for CCWs, if adopted, this
determination would not amend any energy conservation standards. On the
basis of the foregoing, DOE certifies that the proposed determination,
if adopted, would have no significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared an IRFA for
this proposed determination. DOE will transmit this certification and
supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
Manufacturers of CCWs must certify to DOE that their equipment
comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. To certify
compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test data for their
equipment according to the DOE test procedures, including any
amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established
regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for
all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including CCWs.
(See generally 10 CFR part 429.) The collection-of-information
requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to
review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA'').
This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number
1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated
to average 35 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
DOE has tentatively determined that current standards for CCWs do
not need to be amended. This proposed determination, if made final,
would not impact the reporting burden approved under OMB control number
1910-1400.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
DOE is analyzing this proposed action in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (``NEPA'') and DOE's NEPA
implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include
a categorical exclusion for actions which are interpretations or
rulings with respect to existing regulations. 10 CFR part 1021, subpart
D, appendix A4. DOE anticipates that this action qualifies for
categorical exclusion A4 because it is an interpretation or ruling in
regards to an existing regulation and otherwise meets the requirements
for application of a categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE
will complete its NEPA review before issuing the final action.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that
[[Page 71858]]
would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully
assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also
requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful
and timely input by State and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14,
2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this
proposed determination and has tentatively determined that it would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as
to energy conservation for the equipment that are the subject of this
proposed rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such
preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA.
(See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no further
action is required by E.O. 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to
adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a
clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general
standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a),
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that executive
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation:
(1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3)
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive
effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of
Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations
in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to
determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or
more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined
that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed determination meets
the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'')
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published
a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation
under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at
https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
DOE examined this proposed determination according to UMRA and its
statement of policy and determined that the proposed determination does
not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to
require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by State,
local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector. As a result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This proposed determination would not have any impact on the autonomy
or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15,
1988), DOE has determined that this proposed determination would not
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for Federal agencies to review
most disseminations of information to the public under information
quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452
(Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446
(Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving
Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE
published updated guidelines which are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has
reviewed this NOPD under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded
that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') at OMB, a Statement of
Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency
that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final
rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866,
or any successor Executive Order; and (2) is likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on
[[Page 71859]]
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
This proposed determination, which does not propose to amend energy
conservation standards for CCWs, is not a significant regulatory action
under E.O. 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been
designated as such by the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has
not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of
Science and Technology Policy (``OSTP''), issued its Final Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (``the Bulletin''). 70 FR 2664 (Jan.
14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The
purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as ``scientific information
the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear
and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector
decisions.'' Id. at 70 FR 2667.
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of
the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses
that are typically used and has prepared Peer Review report pertaining
to the energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses.\40\
Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented
evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and independent
reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/scientific/business
merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the productivity and
management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. DOE has
determined that the peer-reviewed analytical process continues to
reflect current practice, and the Department followed that process for
considering amended energy conservation standards in the case of the
present action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review
Report.'' 2007. Available at energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (last
accessed September 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
The time and date of the webinar are listed in the DATES section at
the beginning of this document. Webinar registration information,
participant instructions, and information about the capabilities
available to webinar participants will be published on DOE's website:
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=3. Participants are responsible for ensuring
their systems are compatible with the webinar software.
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this
NOPD, or who is representative of a group or class of persons that has
an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to make an oral
presentation at the webinar. Such persons may submit requests to speak
to [email protected]. Persons who wish to speak
should include with their request a computer file in WordPerfect,
Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format that briefly describes
the nature of their interest in this proposed determination and the
topics they wish to discuss. Such persons should also provide a daytime
telephone number where they can be reached.
Persons requesting to speak should briefly describe the nature of
their interest in this proposed determination and provide a telephone
number for contact. DOE requests persons selected to make an oral
presentation to submit an advance copy of their statements at least two
weeks before the webinar. At its discretion, DOE may permit persons who
cannot supply an advance copy of their statement to participate, if
those persons have made advance alternative arrangements with the
Building Technologies Office. As necessary, requests to give an oral
presentation should ask for such alternative arrangements.
C. Conduct of the Webinar
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar and may
also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will
not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will
conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A
court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and prepare a
transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of
presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of
the webinar. There shall not be discussion of proprietary information,
costs or prices, market share, or other commercial matters regulated by
U.S. anti-trust laws. After the webinar and until the end of the
comment period, interested parties may submit further comments on the
proceedings and any aspect of the proposed determination.
The webinar will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE
will present a general overview of the topics addressed in this
rulemaking, allow time for prepared general statements by participants,
and encourage all interested parties to share their views on issues
affecting this proposed determination. Each participant will be allowed
to make a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE),
before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will permit, as time
permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general
statements.
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit
participants to clarify their statements briefly. Participants should
be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants
concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of
participants concerning other matters relevant to this proposed
determination. The official conducting the webinar will accept
additional comments or questions from those attending, as time permits.
The presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or
modification of the above procedures that may be needed for the proper
conduct of the webinar.
A transcript of the webinar will be included in the docket, which
can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning of
this NOPD. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the transcript
from the transcribing reporter.
D. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed determination no later than the date provided in the DATES
section at the beginning of this proposed determination. Interested
parties may submit comments, data, and other information using any of
the methods described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this
document.
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page will
[[Page 71860]]
require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact
information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff only.
Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your
first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter
representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly
because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to
contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be
able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments,
and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted
through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential
Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted via
email also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not
include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead,
provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first
and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing
address. With this instruction followed, the cover letter will not be
publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. No faxes will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email to [email protected] two well-marked
copies: One copy of the document marked ``confidential'' including all
the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the
document marked ``non-confidential'' with the information believed to
be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the
confidential status of the information and treat it according to its
determination.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
DOE welcomes comments and views on any aspect of this proposal from
all interested parties.
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this
notification of proposed determination and request for comment.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on December
14, 2021, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to
delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with
the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For
administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of
the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for publication, as an official document
of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way
alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on December 15, 2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2021-27461 Filed 12-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P