DOCKETED  
Docket Number:  22-AAER -04 
Project Title:  2022 Amendments to the Appliance Efficiency Regulations  
TN #:  254709  
Document Title:  Transcript for Jan 9 public hearing  
Description:  This file is the transcript of the public hearing held on Tuesday, 
January 9, 2024 for the federal alignment rulemaking 
proceeding  
Filer:  Peter Strait  
Organization:  California Energy Commission  
Submitter Role:  Commission Staff   
Submission Date:  2/27/2024 4:11:29 P M 
Docketed Date:  2/27/2024  
    
 
 
 
California Reporting, LLC 
(510) 224-4476 
   1 
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION 
 
 
  
In the matter of: 
 
Public Hearing -   ) 
Federal and Administrative ) Docket No.   22-AAER-04  
Updates to Title 20, CCR  )     
______________________________)   
  
CEC PUBLIC HEARING ON 
 
FEDERAL ALIGNMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE UPDATES 
 
TO TITLE 20, CCR SECTIONS 1601-1609 
    
 
REMOTE ACCESS VIA ZOOM 
 
 
   
  
TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2024 
 
10:00 A.M. 
   
 
  
 Reported by:  Elise Hicks    
 
 
 
California Reporting, LLC 
(510) 224-4476 
   2 
APPEARANCES 
 
 
STAFF 
 
Peter Strait, Manager, Appliances Branch 
 
Corrine Fishman, Regulations Manager  
 
PUBLIC COMMENT 
 
Laura Petrillo-Groh, Air-Condition, Heating, and  
  Refrigeration Institute 
 Alex Baker, National Electrical Manufacturers Association  
Jacob Cassady, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers 
  
 
   
 
  
 
   
 
  
 
   
 
  
 
      
 
 
 
California Reporting, LLC 
(510) 224-4476 
   3 
INDEX 
 
PAGE 
 
 1. Introduction           4 
 
 2. Public Comment            9 
 
 3. Adjournment           19     
 
 
 
California Reporting, LLC 
(510) 224-4476 
   4 
P R O C E D I N G S 1 
 10:00 a.m. 2 
TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2023 3 
  MR. STRAIT:  Good morning, everyone.  I'm Peter 4 
Strait, manager of the Appliances Branch of the California 5 
Energy Commission. 6 
  Welcome to the public hearing for the federal and 7 
administrative updates to the Title 20 Appliance Efficiency 8 
Regulations. 9 
  Next.  There we go. 10 
  So the purpose of this public hearing is to 11 
receive verbal comments on the proposed regulatory 12 
language.   All documents related to this rulemaking can be 13 
found on the California Energy Commission's website in 14 
docket number 22-AAER-02, and that will include a copy of 15 
this presentation.  No decisions will be made today at this 16 
public hearing. 17 
  This public hearing is being recorded by a court 18 
reporter as well as on Zoom, and all statements made today 19 
will become part of the public record. 20 
  And finally, all comments that are received today 21 
and previous comments received during the written comment 22 
period will be reviewed by the California Commission.  23 
Responses to all comments will be made available in the 24 
public in the final rulemaking package. 25    
 
 
 
California Reporting, LLC 
(510) 224-4476 
   5 
  Here are some general rules for this public 1 
hearing. 2 
  First, all of the attendee lines are muted.  3 
Comments will be taken at the end of the presentation.  For 4 
general clarifying questions, please type your question 5 
into the Q&A section rather than making a verbal comment.  6 
To comment verbally, please use the 'raise hand' function 7 
to speak.  For those that are online, we will raise your 8 
hand, and then I as the host can give you the ability to 9 
speak, and then you would then unmute yourself.  So it's a 10 
two-step process. 11 
  For those joining via phone, you can raise your 12 
hand by pushing star nine and the host will give you the 13 
ability to speak.  Remembering that star six then will mute 14 
and unmute yourself.  Please make sure to state your name 15 
and affiliation at the beginning of your comment. 16 
  So here's the short agenda for today's public 17 
hearing.  First we'll start by providing a brief overview 18 
of the rulemaking, including the main components of the 19 
proposed changes.  Next we'll discuss the ruling timeline 20 
and what comes after this public hearing.  And then lastly 21 
we'll open it for public comments. 22 
  The goal of this rulemaking, the purpose of it, 23 
is to provide alignment with current federal appliance 24 
standards and to make other necessary administrative 25    
 
 
 
California Reporting, LLC 
(510) 224-4476 
   6 
updates to California's appliance efficiency standards.  1 
These are as found in Title 20 of Section 1601 through 1609 2 
of the California Code of Regulations. 3 
  This rulemaking is not proposing any new state- 4 
level efficiency standards for appliances, nor is it 5 
proposing any increase in the stringency of current state 6 
efficiency standards. 7 
  The proposed changes fall into five general 8 
categories. 9 
  First, the first and largest category is updates 10 
to align with current federal law, for example, to ensure 11 
that references to federal tech efficiency standards are 12 
current.  The majority of proposed changes fall into this 13 
category. 14 
  The second category includes updates to our data 15 
submittal requirements and processes.  The proposed changes 16 
to §1606 and Table X largely fall into this category. 17 
  Third is the removal of a redundant specification 18 
in the marking requirements for commercial and industrial 19 
fans and blowers found in §1607(d)16.  With the proposed 20 
change, models are required to be marked legibly but are 21 
not required to use a specific font size, ensuring that 22 
products of varying sizes can be marked appropriately. 23 
  Fourth are updates to our regulations governing 24 
administrative proceedings, including compliance review and 25    
 
 
 
California Reporting, LLC 
(510) 224-4476 
   7 
enforcement proceedings.  The proposed changes to §1608 and 1 
§1609 largely fall into this category. 2 
  Lastly, we have taken the opportunity to make 3 
other administrative and non-substantive improvements to 4 
the text of the regulations to help ensure clarity and 5 
consistency.  An example is a proposed renumbering of 6 
certain tables in §1607(d)12(c). 7 
  All of these proposed changes are described in 8 
the initial statement of reasons and are shown in the 9 
proposed regulatory language, both of which are available 10 
on our website via our docket. 11 
  On-screen is a very simple rulemaking timeline.  12 
Since this rulemaking does not propose any new performance 13 
standards, the timeline is a little shorter than 14 
traditional appliance rulemakings.  This rulemaking 15 
eventually began with publishing the Notice of Proposed 16 
Action, Initial Statement of Reasons, and the Proposed 17 
Regulatory Language, also referred to sometimes as the 18 
"Express Terms."  The publishing of these documents 19 
initiated the 45-day written public comment period.  This 20 
comment period ended yesterday on January 8th. 21 
  Next is this public hearing, which is the event 22 
today.  This is another opportunity for CEC staff to 23 
receive comments on this rule.  Following this public 24 
hearing, the rulemaking will be presented at an Energy 25    
 
 
 
California Reporting, LLC 
(510) 224-4476 
   8 
Commission business meeting for adoption.  It's anticipated 1 
that this item will be presented at the March business 2 
meeting. 3 
  If adopted, the rulemaking package will be sent 4 
to the Office of Administrative Law for review.  If 5 
approved by OAL, the rulemaking will take effect and the 6 
proposed changes will be incorporated into Title 20.  OAL's 7 
review is primarily to ensure that we followed process, so 8 
they're not reviewing the substance of the rulemaking so 9 
much as ensuring we actually undertook all of the steps 10 
required to ensure the public was provided the opportunity 11 
to participate. 12 
  The 45-day comment period, public hearing, and 13 
business meetings are all opportunities for the public to 14 
comment.  For more information or questions, please feel 15 
free to contact me or to contact Corinne Fishman, who is 16 
our Regulations Manager. 17 
  Thank you for your time today.  We do hope that 18 
this presentation was helpful and, again, this slide deck 19 
will be added to the docket if you would like to review it 20 
later, and a transcript of today's hearing will be posted 21 
once one is available. 22 
  This concludes the presentation, so we will now 23 
open up the platform for formal comments. 24 
  As stated earlier, to comment verbally, please 25    
 
 
 
California Reporting, LLC 
(510) 224-4476 
   9 
use the raised hand function to speak.  That'll identify 1 
you so that we can then find you and allow you to speak.  2 
And then remember, also, once we have given you permission 3 
to speak, that you might also have to unmute yourself. 4 
  So I see we have 35 attendees online.  Hopefully 5 
we won't need to impose any timing requirements for 6 
comments, but if we do receive a large volume of comments, 7 
if it looks like we won't be able to hear everyone, we may 8 
impose a three-minute or potentially a two-minute limit to 9 
comments, but for now we're going to avoid doing so to the 10 
amount that we can. 11 
  I'm seeing one raised hand from Laura Petrillo- 12 
Groh so, Laura, I'm going to allow you to talk.  You may 13 
now unmute yourself. 14 
  MS. PETRILLO-GROH:  Hi, Peter.  This is Laura 15 
Petrillo-Groh with AHRI. 16 
  Can you hear me okay? 17 
  MR. STRAIT:  Yes.  Welcome to the call. 18 
  MS. PETRILLO-GROH:  Thank you. 19 
  AHRI represents over 300 manufacturers of air 20 
conditioning, heating, and refrigeration equipment, and we 21 
very much appreciate the careful review that you and your 22 
team have put into this proposal.  It is --  we appreciate, 23 
with respect to fans, the current scope is maintained and 24 
the speed at which you put out these changes is 25    
 
 
 
California Reporting, LLC 
(510) 224-4476 
   10 
appreciated. 1 
  I will say that AHRI written comments highlight a 2 
few questions or considerations that we might have on some 3 
of the proposed changes, particularly with respect to 4 
commercial and industrial fans.  The adopted definition, or 5 
proposed adopted definition, for AEDM under the air 6 
conditioners, air filters, and heat pump water heating 7 
packages is specific to residential central air 8 
conditioners and heat pumps, but there is a new definition 9 
for AEDM under fans, and we want to make sure that the AEDM 10 
provisions are preserved for the stand-alone fans.  It's 11 
very important that this federal test procedure permits the 12 
use of AEDMs for fans. 13 
  And also that -- the definition that's currently 14 
proposed, there's a little conflict there.  The definition 15 
that's currently proposed is site-specific residential, air 16 
conditioner, and heat-pump metrics, and there are many 17 
other products under a federal efficiency standard that do 18 
permit the use of AEDMs. 19 
  So we have proposed two ways to rectify this in 20 
our comments.  Either adopt a broader definition of AEDM 21 
that does not reference specific metric, but really just 22 
the portions of the federal code that outline which 23 
products are permitted in the AEDM provisions in federal 24 
law.  Alternatively, to add AEDM definitions that are 25    
 
 
 
California Reporting, LLC 
(510) 224-4476 
   11 
specific to all the products that are federally regulated 1 
that permit the use of AEDMs. 2 
  So those were just -- I just wanted to highlight 3 
there that we support the use of AEDMs for commercial and 4 
industrial fans and for all federally regulated products 5 
that currently use AEDMs. 6 
  MR. STRAIT:  Uh-huh. 7 
  MS. PETRILLO-GROH:  So thanks, if you would 8 
consider that comment. 9 
  And then the other, I think, pressing issue that 10 
we wanted to note today has to do with several -- has to do 11 
with a federal rule that is currently being conducted right 12 
now, which is the DOE had sought feedback on a notice of 13 
proposed rulemaking on certification requirements, labor 14 
requirements, and enforcement provisions for consumer and 15 
commercial equipment, and AHRI provided incident feedback 16 
to the Department of Energy on that proposal.  And we would 17 
-- those comments were attached with our CEC comments 18 
because we want to make you and your team aware of those 19 
changes that may -- in federal law -- that may also need to 20 
be reflected in Title 20, and then onto the made submission 21 
forms. 22 
  So we're hoping that you all will be able to work 23 
with DOE and ensure that there's consistent and harmonized 24 
reporting requirements for federally regulated products 25    
 
 
 
California Reporting, LLC 
(510) 224-4476 
   12 
without the need to -- 1 
  MR. STRAIT:  Yeah. 2 
  MS. PETRILLO-GROH:  -- go through multiple 3 
rulemaking cycles. 4 
  So I just wanted to call your attention to that, 5 
and I'm happy to go over any feedback with CEC on this and 6 
with our data services team if that's helpful in the 7 
future. 8 
  So thank you again for your attention to these 9 
comments and we appreciate it.  Thanks. 10 
  MR. STRAIT:  Absolutely. 11 
  I can say that our intent is not to make this a 12 
regular occurrence, that we'll conduct one of these 13 
rulemakings possibly every other year or every third year.  14 
Our goal is not to have to do this every couple of months. 15 
  So certainly we'll take a look at what you've 16 
pointed out for the DOE proceeding, and our technical staff 17 
will follow up with you if we have any questions about the 18 
technical substance of the comments, but thank you for 19 
submitting the written material. 20 
  MS. PETRILLO-GROH:  Thank you, Peter. 21 
  MR. STRAIT:  You're welcome. 22 
  I see that Alex Baker, you've raised your hand.  23 
I'm going to allow you to talk, so please go ahead and 24 
unmuted yourself. 25    
 
 
 
California Reporting, LLC 
(510) 224-4476 
   13 
  MR. BAKER:  Good morning, Peter.  Thank you.  1 
Alex Baker with the National Electrical Manufacturers 2 
Association. 3 
  I just wanted to thank you and the Commission for 4 
your efforts on this rulemaking.  I've got a few other NEMA 5 
members on the line. 6 
  Following along today, we entered a letter with 7 
our commentary on the proposed amendments.  We have one 8 
question: the ordering of the process here.  We're sort of 9 
accustomed to having the public hearing precede the end of 10 
the comment period.  And we're just wondering, is this a 11 
change that we should expect to see in future rulemakings 12 
as well? 13 
  MR. STRAIT:  This is a change you should expect 14 
to see in future rulemakings.  It comes from some of the 15 
particulars of the Administrative Procedures Act. 16 
  So previously we would have a hearing at the 17 
start of the public comment period that would basically not 18 
count toward that APA requirement, and then we would need 19 
to have one after the public comment period.  We would 20 
normally use the business meeting for that purpose.  But we 21 
found that that created some procedural issues.  So now we 22 
are holding one public hearing after the close of the 23 
comment period to satisfy that Administrative Procedures  24 
Act requirement. 25    
 
 
 
California Reporting, LLC 
(510) 224-4476 
   14 
  We may in the future also have a hearing that is 1 
earlier on, and for our non-formal rulemaking portions of 2 
what we do, we tend to have it early in the public comment 3 
period.  So we'll have a hearing that helps to explain to 4 
the public, "here is what this document contains," or "here 5 
are the questions we're interested in knowing about". 6 
  But for rulemakings, yes, this is going to be the 7 
pattern going forward. 8 
  MR. BAKER:  Okay. 9 
  I would just say that we've found it helpful in 10 
the past to be part of the public hearing in advance, 11 
because it often aids our understanding in what the 12 
commission's intent is, and then it informs our comments 13 
that we submit later. 14 
  MR. STRAIT:  Uh-huh. 15 
  MR. BAKER:  So there has been value in that order 16 
of things in the past, but thanks for clarifying. 17 
  MR. STRAIT:  Certainly. 18 
  Do you have any other public comments on the 19 
materials? 20 
  MR. BAKER:  That's it for today, Peter. 21 
  Thank you. 22 
  MR. STRAIT:  Thank you. 23 
  I see that Jacob Cassady has raised their hand. 24 
  Jacob, I'm allowing you to talk.  Please go ahead 25    
 
 
 
California Reporting, LLC 
(510) 224-4476 
   15 
and unmute yourself. 1 
  MR. CASSADY:  Thank you, Peter.  Jacob Cassady 2 
with the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. 3 
  I want to just start out by echoing NEMA's 4 
comments.  I completely have everything ready to submit, 5 
and I will admit on the record I didn't.  I thought this 6 
workshop would help just kind of guide -- just making sure 7 
we have what the commission is looking for.  If there is 8 
any way for an extension, I humbly request it.  As I said, 9 
things are ready to go. 10 
  There's really only two things that I want to 11 
point out.  One is, it appears that for commercial cooking, 12 
the -- now I'm trying to find where I have it, sorry -- 13 
that the cooking section appears to reference an outdated 14 
test procedure for commercial cooktop efficiency. 15 
  MR. STRAIT:  Hmm. 16 
  MR. CASSADY:  The latest version is ASTM F1521- 17 
12R18. 18 
  MR. STRAIT:  Uh-huh. 19 
  MR. CASSADY:  And then I just want -- with the 20 
clothes washers under §1604(1)(j), my understanding is it's 21 
not used by manufacturers until the 2028 DOE compliance 22 
date. 23 
  So it wasn't much.  We appreciate the efforts to 24 
continue to harmonize with federal regulations, and again 25    
 
 
 
California Reporting, LLC 
(510) 224-4476 
   16 
just humbly request a bit of an extension since this is a 1 
change. 2 
  So thank you for listening to my comments. 3 
  MR. STRAIT:  Sure. 4 
  I would direct you to go ahead and submit 5 
whatever written material you have to the docket.  6 
Materials that are received outside of the public comment 7 
period we are not obligated under law to respond to in 8 
writing, but having that supporting material for the 9 
comments that you've made at this hearing would be on the 10 
record. 11 
  So, I can direct staff to consider those 12 
materials so that there's more specificity in tracking down 13 
that test procedure, for example, and ensuring we have the 14 
correct reference. 15 
  MR. CASSADY:  Thank you. 16 
  MS. FISHMAN:  Peter, may I weigh in for a moment? 17 
  MR. STRAIT:  Sure. 18 
  MS. FISHMAN:  Hi, everyone.  This is Corinne 19 
Fishman.  I'm the regulations manager here at California 20 
Energy Commission. 21 
  And I just want to make a distinction between 22 
what a pre-rulemaking workshop is to discuss underlying 23 
actions and an APA hearing, which is to provide a forum for 24 
verbal comments once the 45-day has begun.  So this is not 25    
 
 
 
California Reporting, LLC 
(510) 224-4476 
   17 
a workshop. 1 
  A workshop is done in pre-rulemaking.  And then 2 
we are required by the Administrative Procedures Act to 3 
offer a public comment period once the rulemaking opens, 4 
but we cannot offer that sooner than the last day of the 5 
45-day comment period.  So we typically do it the day 6 
following the end of the 45-day comment period.  So this is 7 
an APA public hearing where we are looking for oral comment 8 
following our written comment period, which is very 9 
different from the pre-rulemaking workshop, so I hope that 10 
kind of clarifies what this is versus what a workshop is. 11 
  Generally, because this was an update, there may 12 
not have been as many workshops pre-rulemaking as we 13 
normally would in a regular rulemaking, and maybe that's 14 
where the confusion came in.  But I did want to clarify 15 
between those two things. 16 
  Thanks. 17 
  MR. STRAIT:  I would add that, in part because 18 
this is a cleanup rulemaking, we didn't have a staff report 19 
document like we would if we were proposing standards that 20 
has a lot of analysis in it. 21 
  So those documents also will typically have a -- 22 
like a pre-rulemaking publication -- have a workshop or a 23 
public process on that document.  But since we don't have 24 
one of those documents for here, that's also a way in which 25    
 
 
 
California Reporting, LLC 
(510) 224-4476 
   18 
this was all a bit of a faster process. 1 
  MS. FISHMAN:  And this was not a current change.  2 
This is a procedural change that we made several years ago 3 
to hold an APA public hearing. 4 
  So thanks everybody.  We appreciate your 5 
comments. 6 
  MR. STRAIT:  Alright. 7 
  So I'm not seeing any other raised hands, so I 8 
just want to do a quick check.  Does anyone else want to 9 
make any public comment as a part of this public hearing? 10 
  Alright. 11 
  Since I'm not seeing any additional hands raised, 12 
I'll go ahead and conclude this public hearing. 13 
  I do want to thank everyone who reviewed the 14 
material and participated by submitting comments either 15 
orally today or written comments to the record. 16 
  As mentioned, if folks do have additional written 17 
materials to submit, I would recommend submitting them.  18 
Whether or not we are able to issue a formal extension of 19 
the period, it is better to have them in rather than to 20 
leave them out. 21 
  Otherwise, again, we're very grateful for 22 
everyone's efforts to help us in maintaining the currency 23 
of our code, ensuring correct references to federal law, 24 
and making general administrative improvements wherever we 25    
 
 
 
California Reporting, LLC 
(510) 224-4476 
   19 
can. 1 
  So thank you very much everyone. 2 
  Oh, I will -- let me check chat and Q&A.  Okay.  3 
So the chat just echoes someone else's comment, and then 4 
the Q&A is just echoing someone else's comment. 5 
  So I think we are in good shape to conclude the 6 
hearing. 7 
  Thank you everyone and I hope you have a great 8 
rest of your day. 9 
     (The public hearing adjourned at 10:21 a.m.) 10 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25    
 
 
 
California Reporting, LLC 
(510) 224-4476 
   20 
 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 
 
  I do hereby certify that the 
testimony in the foregoing hearing was taken at 
the time and  place therein stated; that the 
testimony of said witnesses were reported by me, 
a certified electronic court reporter and a 
disinterested person, and was under my 
supervision thereafter transcribed into 
typewriting. 
 And I further certify that I am not of 
counsel or attorney for either or any of the 
parties to said hearing nor in any way interested 
in the outcome of the cause named in said 
caption. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 
hand this 30th day of January, 2024. 
               
      ELISE HICKS, IAPRT CERT**2176 
          
   
 
 
 
California Reporting, LLC 
(510) 224-4476 
   21 
 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER 
 
    I do hereby certify that the testimony     in the foregoing hearing was taken at the     time and place therein stated; that the     testimony of said witnesses were transcribed    by me, a certified transcriber and a      disinterested person, and was under my      supervision thereafter transcribed into     typewriting.                       And I further certify that I am not     of counsel or attorney for either or any of     the parties to said hearing nor in any way     interested in the outcome of the cause named     in said caption.     I certify that the foregoing is a     correct transcript, to the best of my     ability, from the electronic sound recording     of the proceedings in the above-entitled     matter.  
      
  January 30, 2024 
   MARTHA L. NELSON, CERT**367