Ben Chou NRDC Water Program Clothes Washer Recycling Work Paper Abstract California Technical Forum October 23, 2014

Measure Description  Measure Case  Old, inefficient residential clothes washer has been removed from service and recycled and is diverted from used/secondary market Most common disposal methods from AHAM survey data: 22% gave away, 16% kept it/still using it, 16% left w/ previous home, 11% sold it, 11% store took old one  Base Case  Owner/transfer recipient continues to operate old, inefficient residential clothes washer  Eligible Units  Top-loading residential clothes washers w/ center agitator 2

Background  Two main types: top-loading, front-loading  Old top-loaders designed w/ center agitator to remove dirt and stains  New top-loaders use impellers, resulting in reduced water and energy use  Faster spin speeds also extract more water, reducing dryer energy use  Many old top-loaders w/ center agitators remain  2009 RECS – 75% of households in CA w/ laundry have top-loader; more than 25% of clothes washers in CA households are at least 10 years old 3

Program Implementation  Downstream delivery  Option 1 (Preferred) Customers receive rebate for allowing retailers to pick up qualified old clothes washer during delivery of new clothes washer Vendors retrieve units from retailer warehouses for demanufacturing and recycling Reduces burden on customer & eliminates costs associated w/ 2 nd pickup SCE: Standard ARP - $164.32/unit vs. Retail ARP - $116.85/unit  Option 2 Allow for scheduling of used clothes washer pick-up Would capture customers who purchase from non-participating retailers and customers with second units 4

Methodology  Number of Participants  ENERGY STAR shipment data, AHAM survey data, participation rates from existing ARPs  UES  Option 1 (for potential savings estimate only) Difference between 2003 and 2012 shipment-weighted average energy consumption Average age of old CW = 11 years (Source: 2011 DEER) Annual clothes washer cycles = 295 (Source: DOE Test Procedure) Energy consumption per cycle based off manufacturer shipment data reported to AHAM (calculated according to DOE Test Procedure)  Option 2 (for calculation of actual savings) Difference between actual retired units and 2012 shipment- weighted average energy consumption Data on energy usage from CEC Historical Appliances Database 5

Methodology  MC/IMC  Customer does not incur any costs for participation  RUL  3.67 years (Source: 2011 DEER – 1/3 EUL)  NTG  Average of PG&E and SCE’s NTG ratios from existing refrigerator/freezer recycling program  Free ridership concerns w/ retail ARP?  IR/GRR  EE Policy Manual – Version 5 6

Preliminary Parameters  Annual Number of Participants – 108,600  Maximum annual participation ~ 543,000  UES – 1,089 kWh  Includes energy for machine electrical, hot water, removal of remaining moisture in wash load, supply/conveyance of water used in CW  Assumes only electric water heating and dryer use – not accurate for CA 2009 RECS: 85% of CA households have gas water heater; 52% have gas dryer  MC/IMC – $0  Program administration cost – $94.36 per unit  NTG – 0.54*  Incentive/unit - $35  IR – 1.0, GRR –

Key Questions  How feasible are the implementation options?  Option 1 – Retailer picks up old CW when delivering new CW  Option 2 – Standard appliance recycling  Is UES methodology appropriate?  Option 1 – Difference between and 2012-shipment weighted average energy use  Option 2 – Difference between actual energy use of retired unit and 2012-shipment weighted average  Option 3? – Difference between and 2012-shipment weighted average energy use  Is there another option? 8