|
 mericans don't
want the federal government in their bedrooms, and they probably
feel the same way about the
rest of the house. Nevertheless, the Department of Energy (DOE)
is about to invade our laundry rooms with a costly new energy efficiency
standard for clothes washers. Fortunately, Congress and the Bush
administration may be able to save consumers from this regulatory
nonsense.
On January 12th, DOE issued its new clothes washer rule, one of
over 100 end-of-administration regulations pushed through by Clinton
appointees before they cleaned out their desks. By the time the
strict new standard takes full effect in 2007, purchasers of new
washing machines will be limited to high efficiency models that
cost hundreds more than those available today. In addition, the
regulation will likely result in a market dominated by front-loading
washers, which can more easily meet the new standard than the top-loading
models currently favored by most Americans.
Energy use, particularly fossil fuels burned by utilities to provide
residential electricity, results in emissions of carbon dioxide,
a greenhouse gas. Thus, DOE insists that, among other environmental
evils, today's energy guzzling clothes washers "contribute to raising
the global temperature via the greenhouse effect."
Even assuming global warming is a serious threat, it is doubtful
that mandating new energy-stingy washers will make any difference.
Energy consultant Glenn Schleede notes that DOE's estimated reductions
in energy use resulting from the
| “Even
assuming global warming is a serious threat, it is doubtful
that mandating new energy-stingy washers will make any
difference.” |
|
regulation "are trivial, amounting to less than one fifth of one
percent of overall energy consumption." Furthermore, the real world
energy savings may be even lower, as DOE's analysis contains a number
of far-fetched assumptions. For example, the agency claims that
the average clothes washer is used 392 times a year, or slightly
more than one load per day. Any household that does half that much
laundry (i.e. about 3-4 loads per week) will save only half as much
energy as DOE predicts.
Despite the weak environmental rationale for these newfangled machines,
DOE bureaucrats don't seem to mind placing this burden on consumers.
And big appliance manufacturers strongly support the regulation,
which will effectively mandate pricier washers that would otherwise
remain slow sellers. Several models meeting the new efficiency standard
are already available, but today they comprise less than 10 percent
of the market. No real surprise, considering that they cost at least
$200 more than conventional washers, probably won't reduce utility
bills enough to earn back the higher purchase price, and have certain
performance drawbacks. But once the new standard takes effect, consumers
will have no other choice.
Fortunately, the public interest has not been completely forgotten
in Washington. Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R., Mich.) has spent a good
deal of time scrutinizing federal efficiency standards with an eye
towards protecting consumers. No stranger to over-regulated products,
Knollenberg sponsored the 1999 bill to repeal the federal mandate
on the now-infamous low flush toilets.
Knollenberg's call to "get the government out of our bathrooms"
earned him the nickname "Patrick Henry of porcelain." Now he is
taking the fight to our laundry rooms. "We should trust the American
people to make their own choices and have control over their own
lives," he says. Unfortunately, the clothes-washer rule was finalized
a week before the Bush administration came in and issued a temporary
moratorium on new regulations. Even so, Knollenberg and his colleagues
may still be able to prevent this ill-advised and unwanted measure
from going forward. A 1996 law, the Congressional Review Act, allows
Congress to strike down any major federal regulation within 60 days
after issuance. It has yet to be used, however, because Congress
never had the two thirds majority necessary to override a certain
Clinton veto.
But with President Bush more likely to support such an effort, Congress
would only need a simple majority, and may be able to get one to
kill this unnecessary attempt to meddle with America's laundry.
|
