Slide 1

Ben Chou NRDC Water Program

Clothes Washer RecyclingWork Paper Abstract

California Technical ForumOctober 23, 2014

1Measure DescriptionMeasure CaseOld, inefficient residential clothes washer has been removed from service and recycled and is diverted from used/secondary marketMost 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 CaseOwner/transfer recipient continues to operate old, inefficient residential clothes washerEligible UnitsTop-loading residential clothes washers w/ center agitator

22BackgroundTwo main types: top-loading, front-loadingOld top-loaders designed w/ center agitator to remove dirt and stainsNew top-loaders use impellers, resulting in reduced water and energy useFaster spin speeds also extract more water, reducing dryer energy useMany old top-loaders w/ center agitators remain2009 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

33Program ImplementationDownstream deliveryOption 1 (Preferred)Customers receive rebate for allowing retailers to pick up qualified old clothes washer during delivery of new clothes washerVendors retrieve units from retailer warehouses for demanufacturing and recyclingReduces burden on customer & eliminates costs associated w/ 2nd pickup SCE: Standard ARP - $164.32/unit vs. Retail ARP - $116.85/unitOption 2Allow for scheduling of used clothes washer pick-upWould capture customers who purchase from non-participating retailers and customers with second units44MethodologyNumber of ParticipantsENERGY STAR shipment data, AHAM survey data, participation rates from existing ARPsUESOption 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 consumptionData on energy usage from CEC Historical Appliances Database55MethodologyMC/IMCCustomer does not incur any costs for participation

RUL3.67 years (Source: 2011 DEER 1/3 EUL)

NTGAverage of PG&E and SCEs NTG ratios from existing refrigerator/freezer recycling programFree ridership concerns w/ retail ARP?

IR/GRREE Policy Manual Version 566Preliminary ParametersAnnual Number of Participants 108,600Maximum annual participation ~ 543,000UES 1,089 kWh Includes energy for machine electrical, hot water, removal of remaining moisture in wash load, supply/conveyance of water used in CWAssumes only electric water heating and dryer use not accurate for CA2009 RECS: 85% of CA households have gas water heater; 52% have gas dryerMC/IMC $0Program administration cost $94.36 per unitNTG 0.54*Incentive/unit - $35IR 1.0, GRR 0.90

77Key QuestionsHow feasible are the implementation options?Option 1 Retailer picks up old CW when delivering new CWOption 2 Standard appliance recycling

Is UES methodology appropriate?Option 1 Difference between 2003- and 2012-shipment weighted average energy useOption 2 Difference between actual energy use of retired unit and 2012-shipment weighted averageOption 3? Difference between 2007- and 2012-shipment weighted average energy useIs there another option?

88