Green Isn't Clean in the Laundry Room

Monday, May 21, 2007
Science
Green Isn’t Clean In the Laundry Room
By John Tierney
Tags: behavioral economics, cars, energy
In the battle against global warming, there is no more beloved phrase in Washington than “energy efficiency.” Mandating energy-efficient appliances costs nothing in the budget and sounds painless to voters. Who could be in favor of energy inefficiency? Congress is working on legislation now to tighten standards further — and touting all the money that consumers will save.
But if these efficient appliances are such a great deal, why do people have to be forced to buy them? The usual justification is that consumers are too shortsighted to factor in the energy savings — and you can support that with theoretical arguments from behavioral economists. People can indeed make dumb short-term decisions about long-term investments.
But when it comes to picking washing machines, it looks as if consumers are less shortsighted than the energy experts in Washington. Thanks to new federal standards, washing machines are using less energy — but as a result they cost more and clean less, as Consumer Reports concludes in its new issue:
“Not so long ago, you could count on most washers to get your clothes very clean. Not anymore. Our latest tests found huge performance differences among machines. Some left our stain-soaked swatches nearly as dirty as they were before washing. For best results, you’ll have to spend $900 or more.”
In the battle against global warming, there is no more beloved phrase in Washington than “energy efficiency.” Mandating energy-efficient appliances costs nothing in the budget and sounds painless to voters. Who could be in favor of energy inefficiency? Congress is working on legislation now to tighten standards further — and touting all the money that consumers will save.

But if these efficient appliances are such a great deal, why do people have to be forced to buy them? The usual justification is that consumers are too shortsighted to factor in the energy savings — and you can support that with theoretical arguments from behavioral economists. People can indeed make dumb short-term decisions about long-term investments.

But when it comes to picking washing machines, it looks as if consumers are less shortsighted than the energy experts in Washington. Thanks to new federal standards, washing machines are using less energy — but as a result they cost more and clean less, as Consumer Reports concludes in its new issue:
Not so long ago, you could count on most washers to get your clothes very clean. Not anymore. Our latest tests found huge performance differences among machines. Some left our stain-soaked swatches nearly as dirty as they were before washing. For best results, you’ll have to spend $900 or more.
Which is precisely what Sam Kazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute predicted six years ago when the Bush administration enacted the new efficiency standards with promises that new technology would clean clothes better and save money. Mr. Kazman forecast dirtier clothes and pointed out the dubious assumptions in the cost calculations, but he was no match for the coalition of environmentalists and manufacturers eager to mandate expensive new machines.
Mr. Kazman and CEI are now urging consumers to register their displeasure by sending their underwear to the Department of Energy. But it would take a lot of underwear to prevail against the forces on Capitol Hill currently working to impose still higher energy-efficiency standards on washing machines and other appliances — and on the biggest target of all, the automobile.
When the federal government imposed automobile fuel-efficiency standards three decades ago, the unintended consequence was an additional 2,000 deaths annually as a result of downsized cars, according to the National Research Council. As Congress debates new fuel-efficiency standards for cars, some engineers say that safety problems can be overcome with new technology.
But I’m skeptical. Sure, there’s better safety technology today, but rigid standards can force engineers to make compromises, and every dollar invested in fuel economy is one less dollar to invest in safety. I think a gas tax is a far better way to save energy — quicker and more efficient — than rules mandating what kind of automobiles can be built.
If you disagree, here’s a question from Mr. Kazman for you to answer: “If the feds can mess up something as simple as washing machines, why trust them with cars?”


Washers & dryers
Dirty laundry

LUXE LAUNDRIES Kenmore’s Laundry Plus coordinating accessories include a storage bin and a folding surface. But $500 to $560 for just those add-ons is pricey.
Not so long ago you could count on most washers to get your clothes very clean. Not anymore. Our latest tests found huge performance differences among machines. Some left our stain-soaked swatches nearly as dirty as they were before washing. For best results, you’ll have to spend $900 or more.What happened? As of January, the U.S. Department of Energy has required washers to use 21 percent less energy, a goal we wholeheartedly support. But our tests have found that traditional top-loaders, those with the familiar center-post agitators, are having a tough time wringing out those savings without sacrificing cleaning ability, the main reason you buy a washer.On the other hand, dryer technology hasn’t changed much in the last 10 years. Plus dryers tend to outlast washers. That’s why we offer buying tips and highlight only dryers that combine performance, value, and reliability instead of showing full Ratings.Today most top-loaders only get a good washing score, and some had the lowest scores we’ve seen in years. One washer, with an overall score of 19 (out of 100) is one of the lowest-scoring washers in this and past reports. Several major manufacturers are meeting the new energy standard by lowering wash water temperatures. But doing this often lowers the washing performance.Top-loaders without agitators, often called “high-efficiency” or HE models, work somewhat like front-loaders, filling partially with water and spinning at very high speeds. While some match front-loaders’ washing ability, our tests have found those HE washers are less energy- and water-efficient than front-loaders. And Kenmore’s and Whirlpool’s HE washers, a sizable share of the market, haven’t been as reliable as their regular top-loaders. At $900 to $1,000, HE top-loaders are as expensive as front-loaders. For all of those reasons, none of our Quick Picks are top-loaders. More news:
More features and style. To soften the blow of higher prices, manufacturers have added special settings such as Bedding and Active Wear, which minimize sorting. Whirlpool and Kenmore have added coordinating accessories such as storage drawers that fit under or between the washer and dryer and countertops that fit over them. Also upping the “wow” factor are curved fronts, glass tops, and colors such as midnight blue, deep red, and champagne. But if you’re on a beer budget, you might balk at the extra $100 to $200 color adds to cost.Rough tumbles. Front-loaders have typically been gentle on clothes in past tests, but three models scored only a fair in gentleness. Longer wash cycles--almost double that of their predecessors--could be the cause.HOW TO CHOOSEConsider replacing your washer or dryer when a repair will cost more than half the price of a comparably equipped new appliance. Our repair data also show that it often doesn’t pay to repair any dryer or top-loading washer that’s more than six years old or any front-loading washer that’s more than seven years old.Weigh cost vs. cleaning. Most front-loaders offer superior performance and efficiency. Better moisture extraction on the spin cycle also means shorter drying times. But at $900 or more, those machines are not for every budget. Bypass high-efficiency top-loaders. They’re as expensive as front-loaders, but usually not as efficient or reliable. Conventional top-loaders are the least expensive and have shorter cycle times but are mediocre at washing. To offset their so-so performance, try some of the tips offered in Doing It Right on the facing page.Location is critical. As laundries migrate closer to living spaces, noise and vibration matter more. Look for machines with very good scores for noise, and end-of-cycle signals that can be turned off or down, so as not to disturb the household. Top-loaders tend to make noise throughout the wash cycle. Front-loaders are quieter overall but make a high-pitched sound and vibrate during spin cycles.Weigh the features. Auto temperature control balances hot with cold water, giving you consistent water temperatures every time you pick a setting. Automatic dispensers release detergent, bleach, or fabric softener at the right moment. All front-loaders automatically set correct water levels. Extra spin cycles don’t extract much additional water. In general you probably don’t need more than four to five wash cycles, including heavy duty, normal, delicate, and whitest white. A feature that’s nice but not necessary: a porcelain top, which is more scratch-resistant than a painted one.Use CR’s efficiency Ratings. The estimated annual energy cost on the yellow EnergyGuide labels can be misleading because it doesn’t take into account how much water the washer spins out of a load. The wetter the laundry, the more time and money it will take to dry. Though Energy Star designations are a better measure, our efficiency Ratings are more detailed.

Check warranties. Many manufacturers have shortened warranties in the past 18 months. Most now cover parts and service for only one year from purchase. Nevertheless, we don’t recommend buying an extended warranty. Our survey data show that major appliances usually don’t break within three years, and when they do, repairs on average cost about the same as the extended warranty. Check whether purchasing the appliance on your credit card extends the manufacturer’s warranty.Skip the matching dryer. You’ll save hundreds by purchasing one of our Quick Picks instead. Remember there’s no need to replace a working dryer. But if yours is broken, look for a dryer with a moisture sensor. Those automatically shut off the machine when laundry is dry, so they use less energy and are easier on clothes.



A New Regulatory Wringer: Kazman, Lieberman NY Post Op-Ed
by Sam Kazman and Ben Lieberman
April 23, 2001

Published in The New York Post
April 23, 2001

They’ll save us trillions of gallons of water and billions of dollars on our energy bills. They may cost more, but their lower operating costs will more than make up for it. They're supported by an alliance of both manufacturers and conservationists, and on April 12 the Bush administration gave them its formal approval.

They're the new generation of high-efficiency clothes washers, and they're so good that federal law will now force consumers to buy them.

If that last wrinkle makes you doubt the hype about these new machines, you're not alone. A dozen-plus organizations, among them senior citizen and consumer groups, had asked the Department of Energy (DOE) to reconsider the regulation mandating the washers.

The rule, which will take effect over the next six years, will supposedly increase clothes washer efficiency by 35 percent. New sensors will monitor the machines' use of hot water, and faster spin cycles will wring out more moisture from laundry before it's dried. The new machines will cost more, of course - about $670, compared to the current average of $421. DOE estimates that this price hike will be fully offset by the machines' higher efficiency within five years of purchase.

But that depends on some very questionable assumptions. DOE used an extremely high estimate of more than seven laundry loads per week per household, yet a Mercatus Center survey found that less than a third of US households do this much laundry.

More dubious still is the assumption that these new models will be as reliable as the time-tested machines they'll replace. Consumer Reports regularly warns against newer, "ultra-high efficiency" major appliances - because they tend to be trouble-prone.

Sears recently recalled 25,000 of its new high-efficiency Calypso washing machines because of a safety problem. And those new sensors don't work all that well; the latest issue of Consumer Reports finds that, for dishwashers, the "least energy-efficient models tended to be those with dirt sensors"!

The new rule is likely to restrict the availability of low-priced top loading clothes, replacing many with European-style frontloaders. Yet many people hate bending down to load laundry, and like being able to quickly open a machine in mid cycle to add a misplaced sock. Low-income families will also lose out, given their difficulty financing the new washer's higher prices.

Why did the Bush administration OK this rule? Well, it was already being painted as anti-environment for opposing the global warming treaty and reopening the Clinton rule on arsenic in drinking water. The science behind those initiatives was weak, but the administration may nonetheless have wanted to do something green.

Then, too, industry actively supported the clothes washer standard. The manufacturers likely see these high-tech models as the key to higher profits - but if they'd gotten together on their own and agreed to offer only these new washers, both the public and the Justice Department's Antitrust Division would be up in arms. Instead, they helped fashion a law that wipes out low-priced competition.

When industry teams up with regulatory advocates to create a legal lock on the market in the name of serving the public, people had better start counting their silver. In this case, they better start counting their socks as well.

Sam Kazman and Ben Lieberman are attorneys with the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington.

Copyright 2001 NYP Holdings, Inc.



Send Your Underwear to the Undersecretary
Dennis R. Spurgeon, U.S. Undersecretary of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20585
by Sam Kazman
May 16, 2007

Top-loading laundry machines have long been a low-priced, dependable home appliance. But no more—the federal government has wrecked them with its energy-efficiency regulations.

That’s the finding of the June 2007 issue of Consumer Reports. In its words: “Not so long ago you could count on most washers to get your clothes very clean. Not anymore. …What happened? As of January, the U.S. Department of Energy has required washers to use 21 percent less energy, a goal we wholeheartedly support. But our tests have found that traditional top-loaders … are having a tough time wringing out those savings without sacrificing cleaning ability, the main reason you buy a washer.”

Some of the top-loaders tested had “the lowest scores we’ve seen in years.”

In fact, out of the 21 new top-loader models that Consumer Reports tested, it couldn’t pick a single one as a “Best Buy”: “[F]or the first time in years we can’t call any washer a Best Buy because models that did a very good job getting laundry clean cost $1,000 or more.”

Government mandates for higher efficiency are almost always accompanied by claims that the higher prices they cause will be more than offset by their alleged savings from lower energy costs. But that raises a fundamental question—if these new technologies are so good, then why do we need laws to force consumers to buy them?

In fact, efficiency mandates often flop, and in some cases they flop disastrously. Government fuel efficiency rules for cars, for example, already contribute to thousands of deaths each year due to vehicle downsizing. Many people dislike compact fluorescent bulbs for perfectly valid reasons, but there is now a push to mandate their use by banning incandescent bulbs.

The risks of the laundry washer rules were pointed out long ago. But despite the fact that these problems have now developed, Congress may well boost efficiency requirements once again—not just for washers (as if they haven’t done enough damage already) but for cars, trucks and a huge range of appliances and machinery.