Residential Clothes Washers and Dryers Ryan Firestone, My Ton, and Christian Douglass Regional Technical Forum April 14, 2015.

Residential Clothes Washers and Dryers

Ryan Firestone, My Ton, and Christian Douglass

Regional Technical ForumApril 14, 2015

2

Overview

• Today we are seeking approval of residential washers and dryers UES measures.– a decision on addressing measure interaction between

washers and dryers– an updated proven Residential Washers UES measure – a new planning Residential Dryers UES measure

3

Overview• RTF Clothes Washer UES measure is due for an update

– Sunset date June 2015

– New federal standard, and ENERGY STAR and CEE specifications effective March 7, 2015

– New market data (NEEA)

– New field data on washers and dryers (NEEA)

– New cost data (PacifiCorp)

• ENERGY STAR has its first Dryer specification (v.1.0), effective January 1, 2015– ENERGY STAR resistance and heat pump dryers are available

– NEEA is conducting research on dryers to support an RTF Dryer UES measure

• Washer and Dryer measures interact– Much of the Washer savings come from reductions in drying energy required after washing

(higher spin)

– Dryer savings are dependent on the moisture content of incoming clothes

4

Subcommittee ActivityRTF Residential Washer and Dryer Subcommittee

• Met on March 10, 2015

• Discussed – washer/dryer interaction

– use of NEEA field study results in Washer measure

– use of NEEA 2014 Washer market share findings

– addressing top vs front load washers

– review of available dryer data, and findings

– Utility Combined Energy Factor (UCEF) as a dryer performance metric

AttendeesJanice Boman, EcovaWill Brandt, PSEJoe Colett, EcovaBob Davis, EcotopeChristian Douglass, RTF CATChristopher Dymond, NEEARyan Firestone, RTF CATBen Hannas, EcotopeSean Williams, CLEAResultAaron Winer, CLEAResult

Subcommittee ActivityRTF Research and Evaluation Subcommittee

• Met on April 3, 2015

• Discussed CAT proposed Residential Dryer UES Research Strategy

• General agreement with direction of Strategy, but significant feedback

• Subcommittee expressed need for more time to review materials and iterate before endorsing Strategy

• [details of meeting later in presentation]

Attendees

Jennifer Anziano, RTFAndie Baker, Abacus ResearchTodd Blackman, Franklin PUDRichard Cole, Grant PUDBob Davis, EcotopeChristian Douglass, RTFChristopher Dymond, NEEATom Eckhart, UCONSJennifer Finnegan, Snohomish PUDRyan Firestone, RTFChristopher Frye, NEEAAdam Hadley, RTFSabrina Haggerty, CLEAResultErin Hope, BPAGreg Kelleher, EWEBPhilip Kelsven, BPATom Lienhard, AvistaEli Morris, PacifiCorpGraham Parker, PNNLJim Perich-Anderson, Puget Sound EnergyBob Ramirez, ItronDan Rubado, Energy TrustJosh Rushton, RTFMy Ton, RTF Robert Weber, BPAJim White, Chelan PUDAaron Wiener, CLEAResult

6

Washer / Dryer Interaction

7

Washer/Dryer Interaction

• Dryer energy consumption is determined by – Amount of moisture to be removed from clothing

– Energy efficiency of removing moisture from clothing

moi

stur

e (lb

s)

1 / dryer efficiency (kWh/lb)

Washer EE

Dryer EE

dryer energy (kWh)

8 Washer/Dryer Interactionm

oist

ure

(lbs)

1 / dryer efficiency (kWh/lb)

dryer energy (kWh)

Baseline WasherBaseline Dryer

moi

stur

e (lb

s)

1 / dryer efficiency (kWh/lb)

EE WasherEE Dryer

dryer energy (kWh)

Baseline WasherEE Dryer

moi

stur

e (lb

s)

1 / dryer efficiency (kWh/lb)

dryer energy (kWh) sa

ving

s

moi

stur

e (lb

s)

1 / dryer efficiency (kWh/lb)

EE WasherBaseline Dryer

dryer energy (kWh)

savings Washer savings

Dryer savings

?

Washer/Dryer Interaction9

• How to deal with these savings?

– Measure identifiers• Would require washer specs for Dryer measure, and dryer specs for

Washer measure

– Distribute across both measures• E.g., Option 3

• Guidelines call for considering all cost effective measures in “full measure package”

• Method would not handle Washer and Dryer tiers– We’d need to simplify to a single EE level for the analysis

– Assume order of measures• CAT/Staff propose to assume EE washer goes in first or at same time

as EE dryer– ENERGY STAR (2015 spec) penetration of Washers was already ~70% in

2014

– Significantly EE Dryers (i.e., heat pump) are an emerging technology in U.S. markets

– Subcommittee also interested in combined washer/dryer measures

Subcommittee majority recommendation

moi

stur

e (lb

s)

1 / dryer efficiency (kWh/lb)

EE WasherEE Dryer

dryer energy (kWh)

Washer savings

Dryer savings

?

BPA and ETO expressed support for this approach after the subcommittee meeting. Efficient washers are much more common than efficient dryers.

Washer/Dryer Interaction10

• Guidelines, Interaction Between Measures– Significant interaction: “The UES for each measure should

account for all significant interactions with any of the other measures that are currently RTF approved. Interaction is significant if the RTF determines that it could change a measure’s savings estimate by more than ± 10%...

– Measure identifiers: “…To the extent practical, identifiers should be used to account for significant measure interactions...”

– “Option 3”: “…When measure identifiers do not account for all significant interactions, the savings can be estimated using the following steps: …Estimate efficient-case energy use assuming the delivery of the measure and full adoption of all cost-effective current RTF approved interactive measures…

– Other methods: “…Other methods may be used if the RTF determines that they more reliably account for measure interactions.” (Savings, 2.3.3.4)

moi

stur

e (lb

s)

1 / dryer efficiency (kWh/lb)

EE WasherEE Dryer

dryer energy (kWh)

Washer savings

Dryer savings

Difference in dryer savings from baseline to CEE Tier 3 washer

is only 7%

Not practical for programs to collect washer details for

dryer measure.

Some dryer measures are not cost

effectiveness.

Option 3 makes sense when we don’t know the order of measure

installation.Here, we expect the EE dryer to almost

always go with the EE washer, or after.

Washer/Dryer Interaction11

• Staff proposal– Assume efficient washer goes in first

– Do not create package washer/dryer measures

• This bundles a cost effective measure (washer) with one that’s not (dryer) to make a cost effective measure

• Programs have the data they need to create bundled measures on their own

moi

stur

e (lb

s)

1 / dryer efficiency (kWh/lb)

EE WasherEE Dryer

dryer energy (kWh)

Washer savings

Dryer savings

12

Updates to Residential Clothes Washers Measure

13

Measure OverviewMeasure Developers RTF Staff

CAT Review Yes (Ryan Firestone, Christian Douglass)

Tech Sub-Com Review Yes

R&E Sub-Com Review Yes – CAT proposed Research Strategy

Notes New federal standard and ENERGY STAR and CEE specs in March 2015

NEEA washer/dryer field study published in November 2014

2014 sales data (NEEA)2012-2014 cost data (PacifiCorp)

14

Data Sources• CEC Appliance Database

– Average performance characteristics, by efficiency tier• Integrated Modified Energy Factor (IMEF)

• Integrated Water Factor (IWF)

• Remaining Moisture Content (RMC)

• DOE Washer Test Procedure– Assumed dryer efficiency

– Assumed water heater efficiency

– Used to disaggregate energy consumption indicated by IMEF (machine, DHW, dryer)

• DOE Technical Support Document, Washer standard rulemaking– Average machine energy portion of washer energy

• NEEA field study– Real-world cloth moisture, annual laundry volume

• PacifiCorp 2012-2014 program cost data– Covers all efficiency tiers as of March 2015

15

Remaining Moisture Content• NEEA Washer/Dryer field study found that real-world

clothing retains moisture more than DOE test cloth– Clothing coming out of washer are wetter than test clothes.

• Average rated remaining moisture content (RMC) in CEC DB: 36%

• Field study average: 71%

– Clothing coming out of dryer are wetter than test clothes. • DOE test procedure: 4%

• Field study average: 7%

– More dryer energy is required to remove a pound of moisture from clothing than test clothes (higher kWh/lb moisture)

• DOE Washer test procedure assumes 0.5 kWh/lb

• Field study average 0.62 kWh/lb

16

Remaining Moisture Content• How to apply increase RMC finding to rated RMCs

(e.g., multiplier, adder, other)?RMC as a function of centrifuge speed for several cloth types

Source: Daniel Larry Carter, "Savings of Time and Energy in the Laundry Process: Importance of Dynamic Surface Tension, Micelle Stability and Surfactant Adsorption". Dissertation presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida. 2006.

Range of interest for clothes washers

Arrows are same height

• In the centripetal force range of washing machines, differences in RMC by cloth type appear fairly constant as the centripetal force varies.

• This suggests that the same cloth-type correction to RMC should be applied to all washers, regardless of the speed of their spin cycle.

• In the measure assessment, rated RMCs are scaled up by 36 percentage points to reflect real world cloth.

17

Disaggregating Rated Energy Consumption

Steps

1. Filter CEC Appliance database for recent (2012 and newer), unique records

2. Categorize by efficiency tier

3. Compute average performance by efficiency tier

4. Disaggregate rated energy consumption as per DOE Test Procedure and Technical Support Document

5. Adjust energy consumption to reflect • wetter clothes going into dryer

• more energy required to remove moisture

18

The net effect of this is to lower the baseline

efficiency (because of the increased representation

of top loaders)

Market Share• NEEA sales data from 2014

– Approximately 45% of regional sales

– Mix of urban and rural areas

– Key findings:• ~50% ENERGY STAR qualifying penetration for top loaders

• 100% ENERGY STAR qualifying penetration for front loaders

• ~60% of market is top loaders

• Current RTF measure assumes: – 51% ENERGY STAR penetration (vs. ~70% for proposed measure)

– 32% top loaders (vs. 60% for proposed measure)

Efficiency tier Top Load Front Load

below March 2015 federal standard 3% 0%March 2015 federal standard compliant 47% 0%ENERGY STAR (March 2015) 49%CEE Tier 1 (March 2015) 3%CEE Tier 2 (March 2015) 0% 13%CEE Tier 3 (March 2015) 0% 28%

total 100% 100%

59%

Top loaders were approximately 60% of all sales

The net effect of this is to lower the baseline

efficiency (because of the increased representation

of top loaders)

19

Measure Grouping• Use a combined Top/Front load baseline (as in current UES measure) –

subcommittee approves – This assumes that there is a single market for washing machines, not separate markets for top and

front loading machines.

• Exclude ENERGY STAR top loader – savings are insignificant relative to combined baseline

• Note: CEE Tier 1 top loaders are scarce, Tier 2 / 3 top loaders aren’t available

20

Measure Costs• Data from 2012-2014 PacifiCorp program• Covers all efficiency tiers as of March 2015• Database does not differentiate between costs with and without

delivery/installation– Assume that this doesn’t affect incremental cost

• Use lower quartile costs to mitigate influence of non-energy features on incremental costs

• Normalize costs to average tub size

Efficiency Tier

below federal standard

below ENERGY STAR CEE Tier 1 CEE Tier 2 CEE Tier 3

below federal standard

below ENERGY STAR CEE Tier 1 CEE Tier 2 CEE Tier 3

IMEF minimum 0 1.29 2.06 2.38 2.76 2.92 0 1.84 2.38 2.76 2.92IMEF maximum 1.28 2.05 2.37 2.75 2.91 1.83 2.37 2.75 2.91count 0 3,099 3,227 243 0 0 2 748 7,724 1,736 514average $573 $574 $626 $1,175 $819 $747 $781 $78525% percentile $500 $504 $556 $1,153 $684 $651 $696 $69550% percentile $551 $558 $659 $1,175 $787 $721 $749 $78475% percentile $626 $636 $690 $1,197 $878 $831 $828 $873

Top LoadENERGY STAR

Front LoadENERGY STAR

21

Non-Energy Benefits• Water – Water and Wastewater as in Standard Information

Workbook– 5.29 kWh/1000 gallons: embedded energy for transportation and treatment– $13.84/1000 gallons: retail cost of water, net of value of embedded energy

• Detergent – Detergent use assumed to be proportional to water use– $0.19/baseline load– $0.13/CEE Tier 3 load … $17/year benefit– This is how RTF has handled detergent savings historically, but there is little

direct evidence of this correlation in practice– HE (low suds) and traditional laundry detergent cost about the same per

ounce and also have the same recommended dosage.– RTF Staff propose to remove this Benefit

22

Fuel Type Measure Identifier• Fuel Type Measure Identifier:

– Electric DHW / Electric Dryer– Electric DHW / Gas Dryer– Gas DHW / Electric Dryer– Gas DHW / Gas Dryer– Any Fuel

• Should programs be limited to using either specific fuel type measures or “any”, but not both?

23

Results - Savings

• Results show for electric DHW, electric dryer.• Measures also include gas DHW, gas dryer, and any fuel variants

Results - Cost

• Results show for electric DHW, electric dryer.• Measures also include gas DHW, gas dryer, and any fuel variants• Current RTF measure uses average costs, proposed method uses lower quartile costs

25

Cost Effectiveness

• Results show for electric DHW, electric dryer.• Measures also include gas DHW, gas dryer, and any fuel variants

Negative incremental

cost

Proposed Motion26 – Residential Clothes Washers

• “I __________ move the RTF approve the updates to the savings and cost of the Residential Clothes Washers UES measure as presented and:– [Limit/don’t limit] use of “any” fuel type measure to

programs that don’t use specific fuel type measures– Disregard laundry detergent savings as a non-energy

benefit;– Keep the Category at ‘Proven’;– Keep the Status at ‘Active’;– Set the sunset date to December 31, 2017”

New federal standard effective January 1,

2018

27

Residential Clothes Dryer Planning UES

28

Measure OverviewMeasure Developers RTF Staff

CAT Review Yes (Ryan Firestone)

Tech Sub-Com Review Yes – limited to initial discussions on measure

R&E Sub-Com Review Yes – CAT proposed Research Strategy. Strategy has been revised to reflect input at the meeting

Notes New federal standard effective January 1, 2015ENERGY STAR specs (v1.0) also effective January 1,

2015NEEA washer/dryer field study published in

November 2014NEEA/PG&E laboratory testing

29

Residential Clothes Dryers

• Federal standard:– New standard effective January 1, 2015

• ENERGY STAR v1.0– Effective January 1, 2015

• Heat Pump (HP) Dryers introduced to U.S. market in Q4 2014

30

Residential Clothes Dryers• Energy efficiency metrics

– Federal standards • D (Energy Factor (EF))– from previous standard. Pounds of clothes dried per kWh at

highest temperature, 66% ΔRMC, assumed impact of auto-termination, no cool down

• D1 (Combined Energy Factor (CEF) – current standard. Pounds of clothes dried per kWh at highest temperature, 53.5% ΔRMC , assumed impact of auto-termination, no cool down

• Optional D2 (CEF) – current standard. Pounds of clothes dried per kWh at highest temperature, 55.5% ΔRMC, tested with auto-termination and cool-down – required for ENERGY STAR

– NEEA proposal• UCEF (lab testing) – Average of 5 modes (D2 plus 4 with more representative test

cloth). Annual energy and frequency of modes aligns with field study.– Technical working group decided not to weight the modes differently.

• Field testing – estimated annual kWh and average pounds cloth/kWh

Residential Clothes Dryers• Utility Combined Energy Factor (UCEF)

– Five modes, equally weighted

Test

Common Test

Name Load TypeCycle

SettingCycle Temp

Nominal Weight

(lbs) IMC RMC

DOE Test D2 DOE Test Cloths Default High 8.45 57.5% 2%

One Small Supplemental Test Load Normal Medium 4.2 62% 4%

Two Large Supplemental Test Load Normal Medium 16.8 62% 4%

Three Eco Supplemental Test Load

Mfr Defined

Mfr Defined 8.4 62% 4%

Four Fastest Supplemental Test Load

Heavy Duty High 8.4 62% 4%

Supplemental Test Loads comprised of clothing available in the Land’s End catalogue

DOE Test Cloth

32

Standard Size Dryer TypesTechnology Vented Ventless Expected UCEF

Resistanceconventional dryers

  2.56 to 3.14

Resistance, improved auto-termination

ENERGY STAR, non-heat pump dryers

  3.0 to 3.4

Hybrid (Resistance + Heat Pump)

LG EcoHybrid Whirlpool Duet 3.4 to 5.5

Heat Pump   Blomberg*, Miele 5.5 +

*Blomberg and Miele dryers are slightly smaller than a standard size dryer as defined by the DOE

33

Residential Clothes Dryers• Laboratory UCEF results

– Units are lbs clothing per kWh

20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Source Baseline Dryers D2 Small Large Eco Fast UCEFPrice Paid

Mkt Wt*

2014 Ecova Amana NED4600YQ Conventional* 3.49 1.53 3.23 2.48 2.08 2.56 $315 14%2014 Ecova Maytag MEDC300BW Conventional 3.08 1.50 2.05 3.13 3.16 2.58 $403 12%2014 Ecova Admiral AED4675YQ Conventional 3.27 1.77 3.15 2.64 2.31 2.63 $315 13%2014 Ecova WP-WED4800 Conventional 3.86 2.23 3.01 2.36 2.12 2.72 $423 10%2014 Ecova Samsung DV45H7000EW Conventional* 3.32 2.05 3.60 3.04 2.44 2.89 $629 10%2014 Ecova GE GTDP220 Conventional 3.52 1.84 3.59 3.10 2.65 2.94 $448 9%2014 Ecova Hotpoint HTDX100EDWW Conventional 3.49 2.23 3.59 2.50 3.15 2.99 $404 10%2014 Ecova Maytag Maxima MED3100DW Conventional 4.06 2.32 3.55 2.56 2.49 2.99 $899 5%2014 Ecova FrigidAir FARE1011MW Conventional** 3.19 2.16 3.49 3.61 2.50 2.99 $539 9%2014 Ecova Kenmore 81382 Conventional* 3.57 2.39 3.64 3.23 2.87 3.14 $863 4%2014 Ecova Whirlpool WGD94HEXW0 Conventional 4.02 2.20 3.82 3.00 2.40 3.09 $809 4%

Straight average 3.53 2.02 3.34 2.88 2.56 2.87 $633Weighted average 3.46 1.93 3.24 2.84 2.54 2.80 $480

Mode weight

34

Available Data• NEEA Washer/Dryer field study

– Metered energy consumption, log book of clothing weights and machine settings.

– N = 50, all resistance dryers

• NEEA / PG&E lab study– Lab testing of 11 units (standard and ENERGY STAR non-heat pump) to

determine D2, UCEF

– Estimated market share per unit to estimate market average performance

– Durango factor – laboratory at 6,500 ft.• Unquantified impact on CEF, UCEF (likely improves metric a few percent)

– Durango lab has since closed

• Ongoing NEEA lab and field testing of HP Dryers– NEEA will certify heat pump dryers for now

35

ENERGY STAR Non-Heat Pump Dryers

ENERGY STAR qualifying

• No clear correlation between D1 and D2– DOE attempted and couldn’t do this

• NEEA investigating D2 / UCEF relationship– 9 Standard dryers

– 2 ENERGY STAR Non-Heat Pump dryers

• D2 does not correlate well to UCEF

• Significant research is required to prove this measure – Need to lab test enough ENERGY STAR non-Heat Pump dryers to estimate average UCEF

– BPA, PSE, EWEB, ETO have expressed interest

The actual measure would be technology-neutral:“UCEF 3.00 to 3.39”

36

Current Data

Energy Consumption Metric

Data Source What kind? How many? D EF D1 CEF D2 CEF UCEF Field

CEC DB/Other product DBs

Standard X

Tier 1, 2 X

2011 DOE X X

NEEA Washer/Dryer Field Study

~46x Standard (some Tier 1?)

X (field)

X (field) X

Baseline Dryer Study

9x Standard X

(Durango)X

(Durango) 2x Tier 1

HP Dryer testing Tier 2,3,4 X X X

37

Technical Subcommittee Feedback

• UCEF is a sufficient metric for estimating energy consumption

• Durango lab testing is sufficient for estimating baseline UCEF– If possible, some of the same machines should be

tested at NW elevations to confirm this.

Research Strategy Summary

Link to Research Strategy v3

Deficiency Notes Research Needs

Reliable and unbiased performance metric

•UCEF is a good candidate: Predicted annual energy consumption is comparable to field study findings.

•However, UCEF and actual consumption have not been measured on the same machines. And very few efficient machines have been tested.

•Lab & field test of 10 conventional models•Lab & field test of 10 ENERGY STAR non-Heat Pump models•Lab & field test of the ~4 heat pump models availableModels within each Tier should have a range of tub sizes.

Market average performance within each Tier

•Baseline is based on 11 data points. Efficient tiers have uncertainty because we don't know where within the defined UCEF range the average product will fall.

•10 additional baseline UCEF data points•20 additional ENERGY STAR Non-Heat Pump data points•Testing of all heat pump machines for measure qualificationUnits tested above would count towards this research need.

HVAC Interactions

•Vented dryers increase infiltration(increased heating and cooling loads)

•Ventless dryers increase internal gains(reduced heating, increased cooling loads)

•Rough SEEM analysis has been conducted and coupled with RBSA SF HVAC system and fuel type data to estimate average HVAC interactive effects.

•More detailed engineering analysis, to address range of home energy performance, locations.•Frequency of dryer location in unconditioned and under-conditioned spaces.•Impact of dryer location in unconditioned and under-conditioned spaces.•Quantification of uncertainty in engineering analysis. If this indicates more than 10% uncertainty in measure savings, laboratory and/or field testing would be required.

Note: Here “heat pump” refers to both hybrid heat pump and pure heat pump dryers.

Research and Evaluation Subcommittee Feedback

Subcommittee feedback at meeting Research Strategy modifications

Non-energy Benefits are important to addressRemoved non-energy benefits research from the Strategy because they do not affect the unit energy savings, which is the focus of the Research Strategy

Research should include the effect of drum size on energy consumption

Added drum size as a variable to investigate in field testing for validation of UCEF

Research should include HVAC interactions and their sensitivity to location within the home

Described research needs more clearly

Research the effect of washer RMC on dryer energy

There is a 7% difference in moisture (and dryer energy) between baseline washer and most efficient. This is not significant enough to require additional research.

40 Research and Evaluation Subcommittee Feedback

• At meeting, no significant concerns, but Subcommittee needed more time to review Strategy and revisions before endorsing

• Staff/CAT distributed revised version one week ago – received feedback from Ecotope– Addressed several comments in revised Research Strategy– Recommendation to use RBSA sub-metered dataset for

baseline• Staff/CAT concern:

– We don’t have UCEF values to align with models from RBSA, – We don’t have field test data on all models used to construct baseline and

efficient cases. – Can’t compare apples to apples.– Could use RBSA to calibrate UCEF-based annual energy estimates

» RBSA values are about 7% less

41

Planning Measure

• Baseline UCEF from NEEA/PG&E laboratory study

• HVAC interaction as modeled in SEEM– All baseline models are vented– Separate measures for vented and ventless

products• Incremental costs from online retailer• DOE average lifetime from secondary research

(12 years)

42

Measure Order

• In coordination with Washers measure, assume Dryers measure is installed after (or at same time) as washer measure

• There is only a 7 percent reduction in savings after adjusting UCEF energy consumption estimates to account for drier clothes coming in

43

HVAC Interactions• SEEM analysis of incremental effect of

increase infiltration (vented dryers) and increased internal gain (ventless dryers)

• Heating Zone 1, Cooling Zone 2, medium insulation and leakage

• Weight results by RBSA stock of HVAC system types and fuels

• Reduce impacts by 20% to account for dryers in unconditioned spaces

• Further reduce impacts by 35% to account for imperfect thermal coupling to HVAC system. Consistent with HPWH measure

HVAC interaction effects

   Baseline

Dryer (Vented)

Hypothetical Ventless Baseline

Dryer

Increased infiltration130 CFM x

55 minutes x 311 loads

Internal gain (kWh)   937

Heating (kWh)

electricity 8 -64

gas 21 -166

other fuel 10 -82

Cooling (kWh)

electricity 0.51 17

44

Measure Costs• Online costs for all dryers available at Home Depot, via

Beaverton, OR store on April 5, 2015.• Vented

– UCEF 3.00 to 3.39: [Matched pair analysis of ENERGY STAR and non-ENERGY STAR models] x [fraction of baseline this not ENERGY STAR]

• $53 (2015$)

– UCEF 3.40+: [Matched pair analysis of Heat Pump and non-Heat Pump models] + [Incremental cost of UCEF 3.00 TO 3.39]

• $638 (2015$)

• Ventless– UCEF 3.00 to 3.39: [Vented measure cost] + [DOE TSD incremental cost

from compact vented to compact ventless]• $401 (2015$)

– UCEF 3.40+: [Vented measure cost]• $638 (2015$)

45

Compact Dryers• Federal definition of standard size dryer is 4.4 ft3

– All usage and performance data we have is from standard size dryers• Models popular in other countries tend to be smaller than U.S.

dryers• Blomberg Heat Pump Dryer is 4.1 ft3

– Appears to have very good performance in lab test• As heat pump dryers become more common, more compact

dryers may enter the market• Dryers at the high end of the compact range may be of sufficient

size for most families (NEEA judgement)• Dryer efficiency improves with fullness of drum

– There’s an efficiency argument for smaller dryers

46

Compact Dryers• Should the RTF develop Compact Dryer measures? If so, consider:

– Performance Metric: Is the UCEF metric sufficient for smaller dryers?– Baseline Performance: Should the baseline be limited to compact

dryers?• Or would some consumers in the market for a standard size dryer purchase a

compact heat pump dryer?

– Usage: NEEA suggests assuming 75% of standard size clothing load• Measure category options:

– Small Saver (based on current market share)– Planning (would require Research Strategy to address questions above)– Redefine Standard size dryer to include larger compact dryers (e.g.

Standard = 4.0 ft3 or greater)

47

Electric Savings

48

Cost

UCEF 3.00 to 3.39

UCEF 3.40 to 3.99

UCEF 4.00 to 4.99

UCEF 5.00 to 5.99

UCEF 6.00 to 6.99

UCEF 7.00 to 7.99

UCEF 3.00 to 3.39

UCEF 3.40 to 3.99

UCEF 4.00 to 4.99

UCEF 5.00 to 5.99

UCEF 6.00 to 6.99

UCEF 7.00 to 7.99

Vented Ventless

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

Incremental Cost

2006

$

49

UCEF 3.00 to 3.39

UCEF 3.40 to 3.99

UCEF 4.00 to 4.99

UCEF 5.00 to 5.99

UCEF 6.00 to 6.99

UCEF 7.00 to 7.99

UCEF 3.00 to 3.39

UCEF 3.40 to 3.99

UCEF 4.00 to 4.99

UCEF 5.00 to 5.99

UCEF 6.00 to 6.99

UCEF 7.00 to 7.99

Vented Ventless

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50 2.29

0.40

0.630.82

0.961.06

0.710.62

0.821.00

1.121.21

Cost Effectiveness

TRC

B/C

Miele HP(compatct)

Cost EffectivenessENERGY STAR,

non-heat pump

Whirlpool DuetLG EcoHybrid

Blomberg HP

(compact)LG EcoHybrid (different labs,

different generation, same model number)

50

Proposed Motion• “I __________ move the RTF approve the Residential Standard-size

Clothes Dryers Research Strategy and UES measure as presented and:– Set the Category to ‘Planning’;– Set the Status to ‘Active’;– Set the sunset date to April 30, 2018.”

• Additionally, direct staff to develop a [small saver, planning] Compact-size Dryer measure(vote not required)Or

• Revise definition of standard size dryer (vote required)