Taking the Washing Out of Washington
Undoing Clinton’s midnight legacies.

By Ben Lieberman, senior policy analyst with the Competitive Enterprise Institute
February 26, 2001 9:40 a.m.

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 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.