UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

**PUBLIC MEETING**

ON

**ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS: ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR REFRIGERATORS,**  **REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS**

U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585 Room 8E-089

Thursday October 14, 2010

Chair: Doug Brookman Public Solutions Baltimore, MDExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 2 **Participants Identified:** Jennifer Cleary Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers Kevin Messner AHAM Meg Waltner National Resources Defense Council Jeffrey Poston Energetics, Incorporated Hoi Yee Lam Energetics, Incorporated Jacob Talbot American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy Joanne Mauer ASAP Kelly Kline GE Martin Severance GE Appliance Margaret Sheppard SNAP Program Amanda Stevens Energy Star John Taylor LG Electronics Dave Hall Electrolux Monica Shimamura Environmental Protection AgencyExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 3 Gregory Rosenquist Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Luke Harms Whirlpool Tom Eckmann Northwest Power and Conservation Council Jeffery Greenblatt Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Jack Henry-Rhoads D&R International Claudette Papathanasopoulos Greenpeace USA

**Participants from DOE:** Michael Kido DOE General Counsel’s Office Subid Wagley Department of Energy Robert van Buskirk Department of Energy **From Navigant Consulting:** Detlef Westphalen Jeffrey Kingman Tommaso GomezExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 4 **I N D E X AGENDA ITEMS**  PAGE **Welcoming Remarks 5** MR. WAGLEY **Introductions 5** MR. BROOKMAN **Agenda Review 7** MR. BROOKMAN **Opening Remarks 10** MR. BROOKMAN **Background and Regulatory History 9** MR. WAGLEY **Stakeholder Opening Statements 13 Market and Technology Assessment 22**  **Screening Analysis 58 Engineering Analysis 62**  MR. WESTPHALEN **Markups 73 Energy Use 75**  **Lief Cycle Cost, Shipments, National Impact Analysis 82**  MR. WESTPHALEN **Utility and Environmental Impacts, 86 Employment Impact, and Regulatory Impact**  **Analysis** DR. GREENBLATT **Proposed Standard Levels 89** DR. GREENBLATT **Regulatory Flexibility Act Consideration 94** MR. KINGMAN **Conclusions and Closing Remarks 95** MR. WAGLEYExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 5 P R O C E E D I N G S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 9:02 a.m. MR. BROOKMAN: Please take your seats. Let’s begin. Good morning, everybody and welcome. We’re going to start this morning with welcoming remarks by Subid Wagley, of the Department of Energy. MR. WAGLEY: Good morning. I am Subid Wagley, US Department of Energy. I would like to welcome you on behalf of the Department to the Public Meeting to discuss the proposed standards, conservation standards, for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. **Introductions** MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Glad you could make it, early start on a rainy day here in Washington, DC. It’s our tradition to start off doing introductions, so let’s do that and we’ll go around the room, your name and organizational affiliation. Yes, please hit the little green LED button, yes. MS. WALTNER: Meg Waltner, NRDC.Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 6 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer, Appliance Standards Awareness Project. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ECKMANN: Tom Eckmann, Northwest Power and Conservation Council. MS. CLEARY: Jennifer Cleary, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. MR. MESSNER: Kevin Messner, AHAM. MR. HARMS: Lou Harms, Whirlpool. MS. KLINE: I’m Kelly Kline, GE. MR. SEVERANCE: Marty Severance, GE. DR. GREENBLATT: Jeffery Greenblatt, Lawrence Berkeley National Labs. MR. KIDO: Michael Kido, Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel. MR. WAGLEY: Subid Wagley with US Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program. MR. POSTON: Jeffrey Poston with Energetics, Incorporated. MS. LAM: Hoi Yee Lam, Energetics, Incorporated. MR. WESTPHALEN: Detlef Westphalen, Navigant Consulting. MR. KINGMAN: Jeffrey Kingman, Navigant Consulting. MR. van BUSKIRK: Robert van Buskirk,Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 7 Department of Energy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DR. TALBOT: Jacob Talbot, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. DR. SHIMAMURA: Monica Shimamura, EPA. MS. STEVENS: Amanda Stevens, Energy Star Appliance Program. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Are you going to introduce yourself, Greg? MR. ROSENQUIST: Hi. Greg Rosenquist, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. **Agenda Review** MR. BROOKMAN: Just on time. For those of you who were here yesterday as well, I know Joanna was. Yesterday I read today’s agenda yesterday. So for those of you that were here yesterday, you can just zone out for the next minute. This is the general form in which these meetings get conducted. All of you received a packet of information when you checked in this morning. A copy of the power point slides that will be the focal point for presentation as the day goes on. In that packet are also, in addition to all this information, are the specific queries, the things that the Department would like to see you respond specifically to.Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 8 Immediately following this agenda review, we are going to have an opportunity for -- we’re going to have an introduction, background, and some regulatory history from Subid. The agenda is slightly out of order. After that introduction, then there’s an opportunity for anybody who wishes to do so, to make brief summary remarks about key issues and concerns. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And then we’ll move from there straight into the more detailed content, market andtechnology assessment. We’ll take a break midmorning, along about 10:25, maybe 10:30-ish. Following that mid-morning break, screening analysis, engineering analysis, and the markups, energy use, life cycle cost, shipments, national impact analysis. We’ll break for lunch along about noon, and then following lunch, utility and environmental impacts, employment impact, and regulatory impact analyses, proposed standard levels. If we need to take a break mid-afternoon, we will, if we’re going rapidly and efficiently, we’ll just keep going for a while. We won’t discomfort anybody, I hope and we will follow on and then do Regulatory Flexibility Act considerations, and conclusions and closingExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 9 remarks at the end of the day. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Typically it’s the case the Department wants to offer yet another opportunity for any additional issues to be raised at the end of the day, another comment period that’s open. So that’s the plan for today. Questions and comments on the agenda? I’d ask for your consideration, please, if you would, speak one at a time. Say your name for the record. There will be a complete transcript of this meeting. As always, today I’m going to be cueing individuals by name as best I can. Please say your name each time you speak so that we know who is speaking. If we keep the focus here, turn your cell phones on silent, and limit your sidebar conversations. Please remember to turn your microphone on before you speak. And you could be concise, share the air time, that would be helpful. So let’s then turn it back to Subid. **Background and Regulatory History** MR. WAGLEY: So once again, welcome to the public meeting. Just to provide you a brief background on the proposed standards rulemaking. The purpose of today’s meeting is to present revisedExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 methodologies based on your feedback and characterize results of those analyses, and to discuss specific issues related to each analysis, and to seek input from attendees who are present here as well as those via webinar -- if time permits, we’ll have to manage that accordingly -- on the methodologies, substances and data sources and to describe remaining steps before the issuance of final rule. Well, throughout the presentations today you’ll see boxes like these. That means we’re asking you or DOE welcomes the comments, data, and information concerning any of the issues that we’ve raised with regard to the rulemaking. Again, about the regulatory background, back in 1989, the final rule was published that set performance standards effective January ’93. There was another one, rule correction affecting three product classes published in October 1990. A second round, final rule, published April 28, 1997 for standards effective July 2001. Analysis published in October 2005 to support priority setting for additional refrigerator rulemaking. And the EISA 2007, we call Energy Independence and Security Act, requires publication of updated standards byExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 December 31 st this year, to take effect in January 2014. As you’re all aware, that there were joint recommendations or joint comments by various groups representing manufacturers, energy, environmental groups, as well as consumer advocates, submitting the joint comments or recommendations on August 12, 2010. The comments recommend specific energy conservation standards for refrigerator and refrigeration products that, in their view, would satisfy the requirements under EPCA. DOE was not a member of the group and did not organize it, but made its contractors available to perform data analysis. Consistent with its legal obligations when developing an energy conservation standard, DOE is providing the public or stakeholders or interested parties with the opportunity to comment on the proposed levels that DOE is considering adopting for refrigeration products, which mirror those in the joint recommendation. Again, you’re very familiar with the rulemaking process. We initially start with the framework documents, the preliminary analysis, and then NOPR, and that’s where we are today. And thenExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 2 1 after the public comments period ends, 60 days from the issuance of the proposed rulemaking on Federal 2 Register , we’ll have a final rule published. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Again, interested parties, stakeholders, participants today are invited to provide summary comments or statements, and again, I’d like to repeat that on the folks on the webinar, we’ll see how we have to manage that, given how much time we have in the day. For this NOPR, the comment period closes on November 26, 2010, that gives 60 days from the Federal Register publication. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The EPCA directs DOE to consider seven factors when setting an energy conservation standards. I’m not going to go through the details of these, but these are the main seven factors and analysis to come up with those factors, and they are provided to you in hard copies. In the NOPR analysis phase, these are several analyses that we conduct to come up with the proposed standards levels, and after this, the final stage of the rulemaking is final rule, where we’ll revise the NOPR analysis and have a final review through the process of rulemaking and publish it. So with that, I’d like to turn back toExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Doug, and again, once again, welcome to DOE, and on behalf of our team who’s working on this, welcome. MR. BROOKMAN: And the webinar is working like it should. Good, we’re making good progress on that. It’s good for everybody. Wanted to, as we promised, invite anybody to make brief summary statements here at the outset. Kevin, you look like you’re ready. **Stakeholder Opening Statements** MR. MESSNER: You can read my body language. Just wanted to well first thank DOE for working to move this forward and pleased that the NOPR mirrors the agreement that we worked so hard to come to conclusion on. So that’s good news. Open with the good news. We have some significant issues that we’ll address throughout the day, but want to highlight to you overall, is that we’re in a very bad situation here with a combination of having to get this done by the end of the year, but having standards equations, with no test procedure. So we have no way of determining what proper crosswalk is, and whether or not this actually -- it mirrors the agreement in the calculations, but it’s a purely analytical calculation to get to the new standardExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 levels, and does not encompass potential other test procedure changes which will impact energy. I mean it’s just -- the NOPR for the test procedure, actually talks about including additional energy from cool-down. That, over the description of what it’s doing, has to impact the energy. Variable anti-sweat heater energy has to impact energy. So those impacts and others are not represented in these equations, even if you get over the hump that the calculation to get to these equations represents the real world. So we need to work through this somehow, and we need to get a test procedure finalized before -- well before the standards are finalized so that we can ensure everything is going to happen correctly come 2014 when these standards are effective. And any input that DOE can provide or any test procedure that we could get, we need it now, because lab space is very difficult and expensive in these companies to have to test these products. And we only have 60 days or less than 60 days at this point to try to figure out what it is to get comments to DOE so that they can -- and I know they want to do -- and everybody wants to have the equations right at the end of the day. So IExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 think we all want to be there, we just need to figure out how we can get there accurately. We’ll have more details as we go through, but anything that DOE can say on that would be very much welcomed. MR. BROOKMAN: Bob, why don’t you find a microphone. MR. van BUSKIRK: Robert van Buskirk. I guess the green light means it’s on. Robert van Buskirk, Department of Energy. The standards in the current NOPR are levels that represent the test procedure as it was proposed in the test procedure NOPR. So there’s going to be two issues. One issue is how well, given that the test procedure NOPR is the reference for the current proposal, what differences, if any, are there between today’s proposal and the consensus agreement? So that’s issue number one. Issue number two is in the test procedure NOPR, there were modifications proposed to -- there were modifications discussed to the test procedure that may show up in the test procedure final rule. So the key technical question on that is if there are changes from the test procedure NOPR, what would the appropriate crosswalk be between today’sExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 proposal and a final rule that incorporates those changes? So I think that frames it so that it’s a technical question. The current proposal is precisely defined. There may be technical modifications, but I think that helps precisely define issues, and does that set a path forward for framing your comments? MR. MESSNER: No, we’re not persuaded. I mean there’s a couple of things. First of all, the crosswalk does not, we believe, as far a we can tell at this point, represent the NOPR test procedure. There are a number of issues in the NOPR that came in at the end of the day to be effective in 30 days. MR. BROOKMAN: Are you going to describe them later today? MR. MESSNER: Yes, we’ll get into those, but there’s -- MR. BROOKMAN: Before you go any further, can you address, Robert, the issue of the timetable he was referencing, how these timetables sync up? MR. van BUSKIRK: There’s no -- MR. MESSNER: And even with those test procedure changes -- so the NOPR -- the calculations in our mind, we don’t know whether it represents theExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 final test procedure. Certainly it doesn’t represent the NOPR because the NOPR had a number of 13 or a number of other items that were brought it. Additionally, the crosswalk that’s there today that talks -- that deals with temperature and volume is based on a theoretical calculation. Some of the data, we had provided during the PTSD for some of the product classes, but now we’re at 36, 37 product classes, so it took five or whatever the number of product classes’ data and used those to try to fit in the remaining 32 product classes, and uses other product classes to -- difference of a couple product classes divided by to get slopes for other product classes, so it’s a very theoretical crosswalk at this point. And maybe, when you have a refrigerator in a lab and you test it, the theoretical calculations match reality, and if that happens, fantastic. But if it doesn’t, we just need to make sure that it does because not always what happens on a piece of paper applies to the real world. MR. van BUSKIRK: And I think today’s meeting provides an opportunity to discuss the degree to which the crosswalk that’s in the current proposal is as accurate as it can be, or, you know,Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 has uncertainties, and today’s meeting provides an opportunity to discuss how, given uncertainties that may arise between the equations in the proposal and what may happen in the real world, what the best technical approach for addressing those uncertainties might be. MR. MESSNER: Yeah, and it’s -- we’ll try to comment, but it’s -- you can’t -- I think where the gap is, is you can’t talk about equations without a test procedure. I think we all understand that the normal procedure, you do the test procedure first, and then you do the standards. We’re doing the standards and we’re trying to comment and discuss about standards without a test procedure. So it’s difficult to comment on, and speculate on a test procedure that doesn’t -- that we don’t know what it is. And so if the test procedure had only temperature and volume changes, and we would then go and test those, or double check the calculation for the other product classes that we had done before, then we could do that. But we don’t know that. We don’t know if anti-sweat heater or variable -- we don’t know a cool down. We don’t know what all’s going to be in there. So it’s hard to say oh, yourExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 methodology and crosswalk is great based on a test procedure that doesn’t exist -- final test procedure that doesn’t exist, and a NOPR that brought in other factors that we don’t know how those are going to be addressed in the final test procedure. I mean, there’s no way to do it. It’s not possible. MR. van BUSKIRK: For the sake of clarity in discussion, I want to try to break those issues down into components. So one issue is whether or not the test procedure that assumed in the proposal is well defined. The other issue is, given the rulemaking schedule, how much time there is available to address all the test procedure issues involved. So I’m going to separate those two. On the first issue the sort of definitional assumption of the current proposal is that the test procedure is whatever it was defined in the test procedure NOPR. MR. MESSNER: That’s but -- okay, how are the 13 or some-odd things that are in that NOPR --that’s what I guess I’m having trouble. The cooldown, the anti -- variable anti-sweat -- there’s a number of things in there, 13 items that were supposed to come into effect in 30 days. MR. WESTPHALEN: We’re kind of in anExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 opening remarks -- MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah, right. Right. So let me just say, these are key issues, glad you’re raising them. We need to do our best to try and deal with them in the course of the day. Let me say also that this meeting was composed for appliance standards, not a test procedure, specifically, so I may have to rely on the Department of Energy to guide this discussion, tell me where these boundaries are, noting that they’re linked, of course, as you say. So let’s proceed then with opening statements. And Robert, thanks for the clarification. We want to get to these issues as best we can. We’ll proceed with that and then as we’re going through the content in the remainder of the day, we’ll get into as much depth as we think is possible without subordinating our principal purpose. MR. MESSNER: I think the first comment block gets into this. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So are you finished with your initial comments, Kevin? MR. MESSNER: I am. Sorry, everybody. MR. WAGLEY: And I would like to repeatExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that in the presentations there are sections that we have indicated there are issues that are particular to those. MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments here at the outset? Tom Eckmann. MR. ECKMANN: Tom Eckmann, Northwest Power and Conservation Council. I just, on behalf of the other side of the table, want to say that we support, we continue to support the consensus agreement that was submitted in August. MR. BROOKMAN: Tom, I think it’s helpful to have a sense on the record of the level of support that it’s been sustained and that it’s going forward as planned, that sort of thing. Can you represent that to us? MR. ECKMANN: Yes, I think I can. We’re falling behind the agreement. We have these technical issues to work out in terms of the crosswalk, that was a major discussion point around the table, knowing that that had to happen, so that’s still an issue, but the levels that were acceptable to all the parties are the levels that are still acceptable to all -- MR. BROOKMAN: I’m just going to press this point just a little bit.Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ECKMANN: Yes. MR. BROOKMAN: The parties that are acknowledged as being in agreement surrounding this proposal, they’re still in agreement? MR. ECKMANN: Yes. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, that’s what I wanted on the record. MR. ECKMANN: All the parties that were signatories, still would sign it. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, great. Thank you. Other comments here at the outset before we get into the content? Okay, then, so let’s then march into it. Detlef. **Market and Technology Assessment** MR. WESTPHALEN: Thanks, Doug. I think I introduced myself earlier. Detlef Westphalen with Navigant Consulting. I’m going to be talking about some of the analyses done initially as part of the preliminary analyses that have been revised as part of the NOPR analyses, the market and technology assessment, screening analysis, and engineering analysis. You’ll notice if you’ve taken a glance through the presentation that we’re not providing as much detail as might have been done in previousExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 meetings. There’s been sort of a guidance provided from management that these meetings need to be shortened, and we need to focus and be concise. And for this particular presentation, we do need to make sure that all these issues for where we request comments are put up on the table, and that’s how we structured it to provide background leading into those requests for comments. So you’ll see that that’s how we’ve structured the entire presentation. That doesn’t mean if you have other issues and concerns that you can’t bring them up, and certainly Doug and Subid will work to make sure that that’s done in an orderly fashion. For the market and technology assessment, the issues that I’ll be talking about are the test procedure, max tech levels, and product classes. And, as Kevin mentioned, test procedures early in the agenda here. The test procedure schedule: the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in May of this year. We had a public meeting on June 22 nd , and DOE is in the process of finalizing the final rule. We already talked about some of the proposed changes affecting the measured energy use, the compartment temperature changes and the volumeExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 2 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 measurement method. Those were the two test procedure changes primarily considered in the establishment of the equations, and coming up with the energy standard NOPR. And there was an adjustment of the current standard levels, current baseline energy use levels, to account for these test procedure changes, and that’s discussed in the TSD. The engineering section talks a little more about the details of some of that work that was accomplished with input of AHAM data. We’ll get into that a little bit later. But issue 23, the test procedure changes, DOE requests comment on its adjustment of the current energy standards to account for the test procedure changes, in particular, DOE requests comment on the approach used to adjust the standard levels to address the compartment temperature changes and the volume measurement method changes. And DOE also requests comment and seeks information on whether any other proposed test procedure changes should be considered in setting the new standard. DOE seeks information quantifying the impact of the energy use measurement of these additional test procedure changes, and it would also be helpful to have some insight as to how the energyExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 2 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 standard level for a product class might be adjusted. There are more details than just, okay, here’s one product that has this kind of a measurement change. Because these are standards that affect all the products in the product class. MR. BROOKMAN: Well, I’d like to ask you a question, Detlef. I notice it says in the preceding slide, your third bullet, “DOE is in the process of finalizing the final rule.” Can you say anything more about that timetable or is it hard to say? MR. WESTPHALEN: Can we say anything, Michael? MR. BROOKMAN: Michael Kido. MR. KIDO: It will be finalized. I don’t know if I can say imminently, but we expect it to be finalized before the final rule for the standards is ready to go out. MR. BROOKMAN: So that’s helpful because that gets to Kevin’s issue that -- it’s going in the direction of your issue concerning timing. MR. MESSNER: Yeah, and I understand you have to say -- it has to be done before the standard, but that could be the day before and I also heard you say imminently, which was a good word to hear. Imminently to before the standard is a bigExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 2 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -- could be tomorrow or the day before. MR. KIDO: All I can say is we are doing our best to try to get it out as quickly as possible. MR. BROOKMAN: I hear a reflection in that that they heard you. MR. Messner: DOE is always a good listener. MR. BROOKMAN: I want to make sure -- did we capture that on the record? Did we get that one? Okay. So you see the comment box is here. Let’s see if we can respond to the comment, issue number 23 is listed here. MR. MESSNER: I’ve got plenty more to say but I don’t want to -- if others want to chime in on this issue. Well, maybe we can pick up where we left off, testing -- Detlef you said, the testing, each of these aspects for 18 product classes, doing that and getting a final test procedure and then testing again to make the crosswalk, all of this in under 60 days. Put aside company lab space and huge burdens in cost though it has to be done to test all these products, and then if you test one factor, let’s say the variable anti-sweat heat and energy conduit, or the whole special compartment operatingExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 2 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in the highest energy use, each of those factors, you test them separately, is that -- are they additive? Do they impact each other? I don’t know. Maybe some folks here from companies know, but is that equivalent to testing the whole test procedure at once, and then doing the crosswalk, and seeing how those impacts, whether they’re additive or synergies, or I don’t know. And so I hear you, that you’d like to have information on each of these and how they impact the energy, but if we have 60 days to make the crosswalk and -- it’s hard to see how that even could happen, even put aside resources and funding and cost implications. MR. BROOKMAN: What is the effective date? MR. MESSNER: 2014, January 1, 2014. MR. BROOKMAN: So I’m confused about -- isn’t there a time lag where -- MR. MESSNER: Yeah, there’s a three year lead-in time. The problem is that if you have a standard equation finalized by the end of the year, and you have that three years, we negotiated, let’s say a 25 percent increase, the new equation, we think, reflects that 25 percent increase, but then we get a test procedure, test the refrigerator andExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 2 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 realize crosswalk was off 20 percent. If it’s 20 percent in one direction, it’s only a five percent increase. If it’s 20 percent in the other, it’s a 45 percent increase, and that equation is final, it’s not -- the compliance data’s not until 2014, but it’s final. MR. BROOKMAN: You need that three years to work it all out? MR. MESSNER: No, it has to be done before the 60 days is up. We need to have the equations right -- here’s the situation, you’ve got three years until those become effective. We don’t have any time to do -- we have to change those equations before the 60 days is up, and you can’t do it without a test procedure. MR. van BUSKIRK: Okay. So now I do understand that. So keep going. MR. MESSNER: You were saying how the NOPR, the crosswalk reflects a NOPR, but I guess I’m unclear how it reflects the NOPR, because the crosswalk just talks about the calculations for temperature and volume changes, and doesn’t address anything about the anti-sweat heat, and the compartmental changes, the cool down, all these other issues that -- I mean, as described theExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 2 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 convertible special compartments operate in their highest energy use position. That’s new. It’s highest energy use. That’s got to impact energy, probably. So that’s where I think I’m missing the disconnect. MR. van BUSKIRK: Robert vanBuskirk, Department of Energy. So there may be a bit of a disconnect because the -- I think one issue we need to discuss at this meeting is what would the criteria for a crosswalk be. So the -- I’m not sure, I think, Detlef correct me if I’m wrong, but I think our current criteria for a crosswalk is that if you test a sort of reasonable population of refrigerators with the new test procedure, that used the range of technologies in the engineering analysis, that they could comply with the standard at the cost that’s expressed in the engineering analysis. Is that basically our criteria for the crosswalk? MR. WESTPHALEN: Well, let me address that by saying that the EPCA requirement for a crosswalk does not have much meat on it at all. It talks about testing some product -- I don’t know what the exact words are, but it doesn’t say anything about statistical representations of all the products inExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the class. MR. van BUSKIRK: So our main criteria is whether or not a refrigerator can be built with that test procedure at the cost that is expressed in the engineering analysis. MR. WESTPHALEN: I think the issue here is that if I picked a baseline refrigerator of particular characteristics and did the crosswalk testing, I would get one result. But if somebody else tested [a different unit], they would get a different result, and it depends on the product characteristics. MR. van BUSKIRK: Right and I think the issue at hand is there is a tremendous diversity of sort of features and designs in the actual population of refrigerators. MR. MESSNER: No, it’s actually -- well, yes, but that’s not -- I guess I’m still back at in our agreement we talked about the crosswalk is you test a minimally compliant product. In a perfect world you have a minimally compliant product, you test it in the old test procedure, and then you test it in the new test procedure. If it’s 500 kilowatt hours per year under the old test procedure and it’s 505 kilowatt hours under the new test procedure,Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 3 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that’s your crosswalk, 500 to 505, then you take 25 percent, 25 percent efficiency off of that, so you’d have to test a minimally compliant and if it’s a little more, then you’d have to make those adjustments to back those standards. But that’s the crosswalk. MR. van BUSKIRK: So the question I have is, is the minimally compliant refrigerator well defined? MR. MESSNER: Yeah, you just find a refrigerator that meets the standard as close to the standard today for the product class. MR. van BUSKIRK: But if the new procedure is testing a new feature, like anti-sweat heaters -- MR. MESSNER: Right. MR. van BUSKIRK: -- then there may be a minimally compliant refrigerator with anti-sweat heaters and one without. And so when you’re adding a feature to a test procedure, that wasn’t in the older version of the test procedure, then that breaks apart the sort of good definition of what a minimally compliant refrigerator might be. MR. MESSNER: Right. MR. van BUSKIRK: And I think what we want to understand is how much in the crosswalk we’reExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 trying to construct are we capturing some refrigerators that maybe have high energy using features that just weren’t measured before, and in the crosswalk, are we trying to allow those inefficient versions of those features to still operate unchanged? Or is the standard level with the new test procedure putting some pressure on those new features? MR. MESSNER: Well, see, the agreement was to have -- MR. BROOKMAN: Let me interrupt. I just want to make sure for the record, this is exchange is going between Robert and Kevin. Kevin, go ahead. MR. MESSNER: The agreement is that the minimally compliant refrigerator today, I should pick a number probably closer to a 25 percent increase. You take a refrigerator that maybe has anti-sweat heater. It’s compliant today. Let’s say it’s right on, just hits the standard. Were this in a perfect world, you make the crosswalk and it’s compliant tomorrow -- I guess I should say minimally compliant -- let’s say it’s 25 percent more efficient than the standard today. With the crosswalk, it should be in compliance tomorrow, and given that there are some products in that productExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 3 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 class, there’s going to be variation, you’re going to have to test one at a low volume, and one at a high volume, get the line and not every refrigerator’s going to be on that line. But whether or not the crosswalk that’s done here is a representation of the line because it ignores all of the additional attributes that are out there today. That’s what we need to figure out, and I would say, for example, testing convertible and special compartments with compartments operating at their highest energy use position, I would imagine that’s a lot of refrigerators that have special compartments, and compartments operating. I don’t think that’s a niche market. MR. van BUSKIRK: So I think a technical issue that is before us, this is Robert vanBuskirk, DOE, is when there is variation in that minimally compliant refrigerator, should the crosswalk be for the population average of the minimally compliant refrigerator, or should it be for the sort-of minimally efficient population? MR. MESSNER: Yes, it’s the minimally compliant. I think we used the term, average. But, yeah, there’s going to have to be something, but you’ve got to do a low volume and a high volume, andExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 then -- so yeah, there’s going to be some above and some below the line, looking at the curve. MR. BROOKMAN: I thought what Robert was describing and watching you that he was just trying to do something that was conceptually possible. MR. van BUSKIRK: Yeah, if I may comment. MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Robert. MR. van BUSKIRK: I think we understand each other, so we both recognize that when the test procedure changes, there may be variation in the performance of a minimally compliant refrigerator under a new test procedure. When there is variation in -- so what I’m hearing from the comment is that when there is variation in the population of minimally compliant refrigerators, that the reference point is the average performance. And a crosswalk should take the average performance of a population of minimally compliant refrigerators and have that population average still be compliant in the new test procedure. MS. MAUER: Yes, and I think that’s -- I’ll double check our agreement, it’s been a few months, but I think it’s actually those words that we used. It’s certainly the word conceptually, the lowest common denominator and --Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 3 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BROOKMAN: And does that accommodate any additional features that are listed here? MR. MESSNER: No, that address, I think conceptually, like we said, we’re all on the same page, but that does not address the overarching question is, you can’t do any of that without the test procedure, because you can’t test at a low and a high and we have our member companies test -- get a population, do a curve fit from a low and a high volume based on the new test procedure, and get a slope based on a regression analysis, and get a line. MR. BROOKMAN: It’s a good thing that you understand each other conceptually. MR. van BUSKIRK: And I think there is -- the follow up, so to repeat my understanding of this follow up comment, is what I hear is that because there are interactions between the different features of a refrigerator, you are commenting that it is difficult to test feature by feature or make the crosswalk feature by feature, that because of those interactions one has to do the crosswalk from a full test procedure to a full test procedure. MR. MESSNER: Yes, that is what I’m saying. Well, we don’t know whether, if you doExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 3 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 feature by feature and you add them, because there’s so many combinations, we’d have to just guess, okay, let’s do an anti-sweat, let’s do a compartment, and let’s go separate and then add those together. Okay. But that’s not the test procedure. The testprocedure says I can do cool down and the antisweat, so that actually would have an impact. So you don’t know, there’s so many hypothetical or so many possibilities, we’re just pulling our hair out, couldn’t test every possible, you know, 13 -- factor 13 or whatever, possibilities. MR. BROOKMAN: Kelly. MS. KLINE: I’m Kelly Kline from GE. I just want to reiterate what Kevin is saying, and that certainly is the case from a manufacturer’s perspective. We think it’s critical to be able to really truth test that, truth test the crosswalk, in practice. And I guess just to pick up on another point that Kevin, I think, explained our concerns that we share very well. We are on the same page here. One of the reasons why we are concerned about it, and the additional 13 factors, we do think there are some in there that could have a significant impact, so it’s not -- these are things not just very within the margins here. We do think there areExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 3 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 some that could have some observable impacts that we would need to really focus on and make sure got captured in the crosswalk. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. MS. KLINE: I guess just one final thought. I appreciate DOE discussion on the timing of the issuance of the NOPR. To the extent we were able to look at the NOPR, as much time as we had to look at that and digest the final test procedure piece would allow us to much more fully comment and be more educated about the specific impacts we think that we would have in our comments on this rulemaking. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you for that. So my sense is we’ve covered a lot of ground here. I’m wondering if there’s other ground to be covered now or whether we should move on. Kevin, yes. MR. MESSNER: I’m sorry, for the rest of the day I probably won’t talk as much, this is it. MR. BROOKMAN: This has been ground to cover. Go ahead. MR. MESSNER: It’s kind of the foundational of this whole NOPR. Is there any other option -- and I realize DOE’s on the deadline of December 31 st , thinking outside the box of optionsExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 3 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you could extend that deadline, and we could resolve this properly. Or figure out a way, if a final [test procedure rule], if it’s imminent and coming out -- imminent in my mind means next few days, next Monday or Tuesday, that would be something to work with. If those two options aren’t there, the only third option that I -- and I don’t know if there is other regulatory options available to DOE, NODAs or some posting test procedure preliminary test procedure that’s not final, I don’t know. That’s where lawyers can get creative. MR. KIDO: Well, the statute requires that we issue something by December 31, 2010, and just for the record, in case you care to look at the calendar, December 31, 2010 is actually a federal holiday, which means that we actually have to get this thing, the standard, the final rule, out by the 30 th

. In terms of some sort of preliminary approach, I guess one thing that I suppose could be considered, I’m not saying that this would necessarily be appropriate here, would possibly be an interim final rule that addresses certain aspects of our proposal. But in doing so, that would mean that certain other aspects would have to beExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 3 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 addressed at a later point in time. For example, if the issue here is really all with the test procedure itself, and there are certain things that raise a whole lot of ambiguities that no one really understands what the exact impacts are going to be, it’s -- it might be possible to defer those items later on, but I’d have to go back and take a look. But that would also assume that there are certain things that everyone agrees upon. So what I heard today was temperature, and volume -- those might be things that everyone is on the same page in terms of what that means for the potential standard impacts. I would say that a common theme that DOE has raised over and over again, with respect to a lot of the different things that we proposed in that Notice of Proposed Rulemaking from May 2010 of the test procedure, was that if, for example, there are certain things that are likely -- certain things that we propose that are likely to have a significant impact on energy, I’m pretty certain that we had asked, what do you think that impact is going to be? Can you quantify it? Are there computer models that can be done based on the proposal that we had back in May thatExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 can help give you guys an idea, and help us in figuring out what these potential impacts would be, and maybe we could use that to sort of feed into the crosswalk. We don’t have all that data, and I think individual manufacturers might be in a better position to try to come up with estimates, reasonable estimates as to those values. So there might be options, but we’d have to explore them and it’s not entirely clear that those options would necessarily need to be exercised at this point. But we’ll examine them. MR. BROOKMAN: Robert, go ahead. MR. van BUSKIRK: I think, you know, it’s not my role to give legal interpretations, but one of the legal constraints on the Department is what we call the anti-backsliding provision. And a possible interpretation of that anti-backsliding provision is that when there’s a change, it doesn’t necessarily -- it may not necessarily apply to the population average. So if there is variability, and if there is an anti-backsliding provision, then that change in the regulation needs to assure that no individual product can backslide. So that’s a tighter constraint potentially, when you’re tryingExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 4 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to do a crosswalk based on the population average. MR. BROOKMAN: Kevin. MR. MESSNER: Kevin Messner. But then the anti-backsliding, that applies when you do a test procedure and no standards changed. So we’re talking about a standards change, so I’m not sure how the anti-backsliding plays in, unless you’re talking about -- MR. van BUSKIRK: This is speaking to say changes that may happen later in a test procedure. So if you were asking for legal possibilities on maybe making some changes now and some changes later. MR. MESSNER: I think the bottom line is we want to make sure we’re not in a position where we end up making certain changes and later on we ended up having a less stringent standard down the road. So I think that’s the bottom line in that. MR. BROOKMAN: That was useful I thought, Kevin, you want to keep going? MR. MESSNER: No, I think that’s -- we’ve probably beat this to death. Other folks have said all they can. I appreciate it. It’s helpful. It’ll be helpful when we see the either interim or final test procedure, the sooner the better, and weExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 4 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 can start checking it out and start getting to where we all want to be. So thanks a lot. And thanks for the Department, it’s always helpful to hear what’s possible from their perspective. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, let’s proceed with -- are there other responses to this comment box that you see here before you on slide 14? MR. MESSNER: Well, I guess for the record, I just wanted to list kind of the four major test procedure proposals that would have an impact on measured energy, for the record. We kind of alluded to them in our discussion, but the test procedure for variable anti-sweat heat energy contributions, the DOE proposes to modify the GE waiver and that’ll result in higher measured energy use. We’ll get into why, but it’ll all affect the energy use. Testing convertible and special compartments with the test procedure to state that other temperature controllable compartments with controls set in the highest energy use. The current test procedure provides a temperature control compartments be tested with the control set at the coldest setting. So those are not necessarily the

same.Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 4 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Third, a proposal to capture precooling energy, capture precooling energy that just by themselves is going to impact energy, and DOE stated on the test procedure NOPR that the precooling can represent about two percent of the total energy. And fourth, proposal to address multiple defrost cycle types. The DOE proposed that the second part of the test be applied separately to each of the defrost cycles, so that’ll impact the energy as well. So those are the four that I wanted to highlight that will impact the energy use and will affect all the things that we kind of more in the weeds and what we’ve been talking about. MR. BROOKMAN: Subid. MR. WAGLEY: I would just like to emphasize on Michael’s point before that, we’re open for comments period and we’ll really appreciate-- I mean it doesn’t have to wait until the final test procedure comes out, but if there’s any relevant information that we can utilize for the current rulemaking in the standards aside, please feel free to submit them. MR. BROOKMAN: I presume you mean quantified?Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 4 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. WAGLEY: Correct. MR. WESTPHALEN: Yeah, this is Detlef. I was going to ask Kevin if any of -- if there has been any quantification of those four effects that you could share, that the manufacturers could share with DOE at this point. MR. MESSNER: No, I don’t have anything to share with you today. MR. BROOKMAN: Luke. MR. HARMS: Yeah, I just want to -- this is Luke Harms -- I just want to reemphasize a few of the things that Kevin mentioned. First of all, with regard to the anti-sweat heating devices, we firmly believe that there is significant opportunity for energy use changes as a result of the test procedure. And I also want to mention that there’s also a significant test burden. The last piece that Kevin mentioned, you’re adding at least an additional week to the testing for these products, so there’s a major concern there as well. And then I just wanted to give an example on the special compartment issue. There are currently refrigerators on the market that have devices such as heaters and/or fans that help in situations for the refrigerators in a very coldExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 environment to prevent refrigerated food from freezing, and that’s one example where they have higher energy usage. And there’s a test burden there as well because certainly if you have to test at the highest energy use and when these other features are running, there’s additional testing required. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks for that. MR. WESTPHALEN: Again, this is Detlef. I’d like to ask perhaps for these special compartments that might have heaters or fans, whether there’s additional data that might help DOE, such as what model numbers have these, or what percentage of models, what kind of wattages of heaters and/or fans are involved and whether there’s any understanding of the energy use impacts associated with the switching to highest energy use position. MR. MESSNER: No, we don’t have any -- it kind of gets to the point I was talking about earlier is the manufacturer’s labs could be just devoted to testing all these different issues, and we’re trying to kind of balance. We want to do this right. We want to give DOE the data that it needs, but spending three months of lab space testing allExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 4 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 different pieces, 13 different pieces in different iterations, and then testing again on the crosswalk, it’s just a mountain too high to climb. I mean, we’ve got to figure out a way to minimize this testing burden to get you guys what you need and get the crosswalks to where we need it. So that we can produce some testing within this tight timeframe, but testing every single solitary specific, and every possible model and then giving it to you, I’m not sure that even gives you what you want because then is it additive? You know, like I said before, is this -- can you add it to this, and that to that, and then put them all together, and then you’ve got to retest again, so we need to try to figure how to balance that within the next 45 days or whatever we have left. MR. BROOKMAN: Kelly. MS. KLINE: Just to pick up on what Kevin said, I mean I think part of it’s kind of a catch 22 because from a manufacturer’s perspective, before embarking on the testing, we would like to have the exact formula, the exact test procedure that we would be using to test. So it’s -- I think what you’re seeing here, partly is waiting to see what parameters should define the exact test that weExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 4 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would then be using. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Gotcha. I think we’ve covered this sufficiently now. Yes? So we’re going to move on. MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay, next topic here is max tech -- the max tech efficiency levels are listed in, I believe it’s Section 3 of the NOPR. They’re generally, for the product classes analyzed, higher than the max available efficiency levels, and this reflects consideration of max tech designs and the analysis that may not been cost-effective, and therefore not in current products. This slide is intended to show the distribution of design options used for different product classes and the analysis, and I note thereare two mistakes in this chart. The variable antisweat heater control should not be in the five built-in, and the adaptive defrost should not be in the 3A built-in, all-refrigerator built-in. I think this is correct in the TSD, it might not be in the NOPR. MR. WAGLEY: Could you just repeat those corrections? Got the five built-in -- MR. WESTPHALEN: Five built-in does not include the variable anti-sweat control. 3A built-Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 4 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in does not include adaptive defrost. MR. WAGLEY: And we’ll make those changes before we post it on line. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Subid. MR. WESTPHALEN: And the request for comment on Max-Tech levels, DOE requests comments on the max-tech levels identified and on the combinations of design options considered applicable to achieve max-tech designs. DOE requests the comment also address, as appropriate, the differences in applicable design options for different product classes. MR. BROOKMAN: Comments on these preceding slides, max-tech levels? No comments. Okay. MR. WESTPHALEN: Next topic is product classes. This is kind of a big topic, the number of product classes has increased. DOE is proposing to add product classes as follows. First of all, French-door, bottom mount refrigerator-freezers with through-the-door ice service, the product class 5A. This is a product class that was established through the exception relief process through the Office of Hearing and Appeals. Also chest freezers with automatic defrost, again established through the Office ofExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 4 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Hearing and Appeals process. The third bullet here, all-refrigerators. This includes product classes 1A, 3A, 11A, and 13A. This set of product classes was split out from their product classes in the current energy standard because of the compartment temperature changes in the test procedure. All-refrigerators are currently tested with a 38 fresh food compartment temperature, which will move to 39, whereas the basic refrigerators or refrigerator-freezers, those are products with sizable freezers, currently tested with a 45 degree fresh refrigerator which will move down to 39. So clearly, for one set of products, energy will increase significantly, for the other set of products, it will go down, so there’s an inconsistency there. The EPCA allowance for the product features of value that distinguish products with sizable freezers is justification for splitting these product classes. Products with automatic ice makers without through-the-door ice service, the proposed test procedure includes a fixed place holder value adder for the energy use associated with automatic icemakers. That energy, for products with through-thedoor ice service, there’s no difference. TheExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 assumption is you always have an ice maker because it has through-the-door ice service. However, products that do not have through-the-door ice service could have an ice maker or could not have an ice maker, so those product classes have been separated out. There’s a designator “I” next to the product class number that indicates that that particular product class has an ice maker. And then finally, built-in products. This product class was discussed throughout the rulemaking-- starting in the framework, there were some comments made, the preliminary analysis provided some initial indications of potential efficiency capability differences of these product classes, and so new product classes have been established to address these product classes. Issues for public comment. There’s two issues here. First of all, product classes for automatic ice makers, DOE requests comments on establishing product classes for refrigeration products with automatic ice makers, and on the proposed approach to account for ice makers in the product class structure. MR. BROOKMAN: Comment on these? Kevin. MR. MESSNER: I was just going to make aExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 5 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 general comment, Detlef, we’ve got some technical -- we’re going through the descriptions on the charts and things like that, and we’ll have some comments to provide you on that, and some product classes that do have ice makers that you need an I class for that aren’t in there, so we’re trying to get all, to make sure we’ve got everything done right and we’ll provide those in more detail in the written comments. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other comments on these two boxes? MR. WESTPHALEN: I think Kevin’s comment addresses issue five, additional product classes to address additional combinations of ice making and built-in. MR. BROOKMAN: So why don’t you proceed to the next slide. MR. WESTPHALEN: Yep. This slide addresses potential combination of product classes. DOE does not propose at this time to combine product classes 1 and 2, nor to combine product classes 11 and 12. This had been discussed at the preliminary analysis phase, and DOE requests comment on the decision at this point not to propose combination of these product classes.Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 5 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BROOKMAN: Comments on this? MR. MESSNER: I would just say it mirrors the agreement. It’s good. MR. BROOKMAN: We are on issue -- comment box number six. Kevin. MR. MESSNER: This is Kevin Messner. I was just saying this mirrors this agreement. MR. BROOKMAN: I see Tom nodding his head. MR. ECKMANN: Yes, we agree. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. MR. WESTPHALEN: The proposed definition for built-in products. DOE proposed a definition to distinguish these products from other conventional free-standing products. Built-in refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer or freezer means any refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer with 7.75 cubic foot or greater total volume, and 24 inches or less depth, not including handles, and not including any custom front panels; is designed to be encased in the sides and rear by cabinetry; is designed to be securely fastened to adjacent cabinetry walls or floor and has sides which are not fully finished and are not designed to be visible after installation. The 7.75 cubic foot limit was introducedExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 5 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 as recognition that as part of the 2001 standards, relief was provided for compact product classes, and DOE did not feel that, as described in the NOPR in more detail, that it was appropriate to include the compact products in the built-in split of product classes. The issue for public comment, DOE requests comment on the proposal to establish separate product classes for built-in refrigeration products, and requests comment on the proposed definition. Is it sufficiently strong to distinguish built-in products from conventional products? Is there something that can be done to strengthen it without disqualifying true built-in products? And also whether the proposed 24-inch dimension specified is appropriate, or should that be adjusted? MR. BROOKMAN: So comments on this? MR. ECKMANN: This is Tom Eckmann from Northwest Power and Conservation Council. It’s not exactly what we proposed, so I don’t think we have a consensus to comment on it yet. MR. MESSNER: I guess we’re wondering why -- yeah, why -- why the changes were made. MR. WESTPHALEN: Some of those were made, tightening up some of the language, and Michael mayExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 5 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 be able to speak to that more. The 24 inches restriction was inserted because in a lot of the discussion regarding built-ins and why they use more energy, the shallow depth was mentioned as a key

reason. MR. BROOKMAN: Michael Kido. MR. KIDO: Like Detlef said, I think one of the considerations that we had was that the definitions that were -- I think -- I don’t know if they were part of any kind of consensus agreement, but I do recall seeing something that AHAM had proposed, and we were concerned that the language that was proposed by AHAM as an alternative would have created the risk of potential gaming. Now if there is -- and because there is some wiggle room with respect to some of the terms that were used, and as the comment says, if you’ve got some suggestions as to how we can ensure that any true built in product is adequately covered by the definition, while ensuring that we don’t have a situation where anyone can sort of indicate that they’ve got a built-in product when it really isn’t, that would be extremely helpful. MR. MESSNER: Yes, this is Kevin with AHAM. Our agreement does have a definition. It’sExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not an AHAM definition, and we talked about this definition and talked about that exact issue, to ensure it’s air-tight, or as air-tight as you can make it. So we had a consensus agreement on the definition, and that’s why I was curious that this does not mirror that agreed-upon definition, and we did talk about that gaming -- potential gaming issue at length, and thought there were plenty of caveats in there to ensure that didn’t occur with the walls and the side test and the finishing and that type of thing. MR. ECKMANN: This is Tom Eckmann. It would be helpful if we could hear your thinking on what was in the consensus agreement and what this definition provides that is somehow or another more gaming-proof. Because we were trying to write one that was. And if we missed something, maybe we could take it up. MR. KIDO: Right. I’d probably have to have both versions before me so I can sort of go through them, but the recollection that I have was that there were certain sections in that definition,consensus definition, that left certain things openended, and I’m not certain that we wanted to necessarily leave things --Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ECKMANN: Could you be specific about those? MR. KIDO: Like I said, I can’t do it unless -- if I had it in front of me, I could probably do it, but if you want to meet later to discuss it, I’d be more than happy to. MR. ECKMANN: I’m sure we have a copy. MS. KLINE: Yeah, I have a copy of that. MR. BROOKMAN: So maybe -- MR. KIDO: Do we want to address this now or should we address it during the break? MR. BROOKMAN: You can look at it during the break and we can capture your thoughts on the record when we return from break. MR. ECKMANN: Our intent is the same, but we’re just trying to get to, you know, if there’s a reason for a difference, then we may not have a difference. MR. WESTPHALEN: Just as a note, when we were developing the NOPR, we had the AHAM definition as part of the AHAM comments for the preliminary that we worked with, and the NOPR provides detailed explanation of why we made certain changes from that. Now the consensus definition might have additional changes we could consider that haven’tExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 5 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 been really reflected in the NOPR. MR. BROOKMAN: Do you need the consensus agreement, or do you have it? MR. KIDO: Well, the definition I guess I had been thinking about was the AHAM definition, so maybe it’s -- maybe the consensus definition isn’t one that I’ve seen before. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So we’ll take this up again, perhaps after the break, after Michael’s has had a chance to look at it. Very good, so let’s

move on. MR. WESTPHALEN: Also regarding product class definitions, DOE proposes to eliminate the 36 inch height restriction for compact products. This is explained in detail in the NOPR as to why DOE is making this proposal. Essentially, it has to do with an inability to explain why the 36 inch height restriction makes a difference in ability to improve efficiency. Issue for public comment is DOE requests comment on the proposal to eliminate the current 36 inch height limitation for compact products. MR. BROOKMAN: Joanna. MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. The consensus agreement does not include any change to theExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 5 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 definition of compact products, so it still includes this 36 inch height limitation, the way it currently is the definition. MR. BROOKMAN: So then -- okay, thank you. Kevin, you want to -- yes. MR. MESSNER: I agree. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. I think that takes care of it then. MR. WESTPHALEN: Unless we want to take a break, I’ll move on to screening analysis. MR. BROOKMAN: I think we can go a little bit longer before we take a break. **Screening Analysis** MR. WESTPHALEN: Screening analysis issues raised for comment address compressors, vacuum insulated panels, and isobutane refrigerant. On compressors, during some of the discussions with manufacturers and looking over some of the information that came during the NOPR analysis, there was a suggestion that there might be supply issues associated with the highest efficiency and variable speed compressors. DOE did some investigation of this issue and concluded that the supply base will be able to ramp up to provide the products with efficiency levels and characteristicsExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 as used in the NOPR analyses. The issues for public comment, DOE requests comments on DOE’s findings regarding projections of supply of high efficiency and variable speed compressors. In particular, DOE seeks information that would confirm or cast doubt on DOE’s conclusions regarding compressor supply. MR. BROOKMAN: Kelly. MS. KLINE: Just a note, we can provide further detail in our written comments, but that is something that we’re still concerned with and don’t necessarily agree with that conclusion. And we’ll provide more detail in our written comments. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. I just wonder if we have another manufacturer or two or AHAM that wishes to make a representation here? Nothing more? Okay. MR. BROOKMAN: And the other issues that are listed there that are related to the screening analysis. Any comment on those? MR. WESTPHALEN: Vacuum insulated panels - - this was discussed at the preliminary. Some of the investigations DOE conducted as part of the NOPR analyses described in the TSD, Appendix 4A, I believe, and some of that is also in the NOPR. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. WESTPHALEN: And isobutane refrigerant, any comments on DOE’s treatment of isobutane refrigerant in the analysis. MS. KLINE: Kelly Kline, GE. Yeah, a couple comments here. I think that this is actually not the right conclusion that isobutane would not be viable but only for compact refrigerators. Based on a couple things, looking at the DOE analysis. First of all, I think a lot of the reasoning is grounded in the 50 gram charge limit, which I understand, that is the current version of the UL rule, which as noted is being considered to be revised to include some revisions to the charge limitation. But primarily, in terms of the UL standard, I think what DOE was not focusing on here is that that will allow a 50 gram charge per sealed system. So primarily, it’s not -- it’s not a single limit for the refrigerator. It does allow for 50 grams per sealed system. So that’s the primary point. And the second point is that as DOE, as I understand it, looked at products existing on the market and showing that full sized refrigerators were not currently designed for 50 gram charge limitation, I think that what that’s not realizingExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 6 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is that manufacturer plans have really been dependent on the EPA SNAP approval for this refrigerant, which of course the proposed rule has been issued which would provide that approval. We’re waiting on the final rule. That is really going to be the trigger when you’ll see, for the most part, those sorts of products on the US market. So you can’t look at what’s out there now and say there’s nothing other than compacts that would need it, because the products are really only going to be introduced when the EPA snap approval is finalized, and those would be new designs, new designed refrigerators to meet the UL limitations and have UL certification. So I think for both of those reasons, the analysis that 50 grams, the UL charge limitation rules out the use of isobutane in household refrigerators is flawed. MR. BROOKMAN: That was helpful, thank you. MR. WESTPHALEN: May I ask whether DOE could be provided with additional technical information that would support any revision of the analyses, technical detail on potential designs that would address the 50 gram limits with newExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 6 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 technology? MS. KLINE: We can certainly provide some additional information. I think there would be some sensitivity around providing specific design information for new products that would meet those limitations, but we can certainly provide additional information on the UL standard, I think. I certainly can’t speak for EPA, but I think EPA would also be useful in weighing in here, and I’d be curious to hear other comments in the room, but I think that we could certainly provide further information on how products would be able to meet those charge limitations. MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. Okay. Good. Additional comments on isobutane refrigerant. Okay. **Engineering Analysis** MR. WESTPHALEN: Now moving on to the engineering analysis, if we’re all going strong. This slide touches on the crosswalk issue again a little bit. It goes into some of the details of the way this was done for the analysis. MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s take a break now, shall we? It’s now 10:25. We’ll break for 15 minutes. Is that okay with everybody? Yeah. We’ll break for 15 minutes, which means we resume atExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 6 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10:40. Make sure you wear your badge in the building. (Whereupon, the hearing was off the record for a 16-minute recess.) MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. If you could all take your seats we’re going to start back up. Before we went to the break, we had cued up that Michael Kido was going to look at the definition issue that was raised earlier. So Michael Kido. MR. KIDO: Thanks, Doug. And looking at the definition that was given to me by a representative from NRDC, it looked like the one aspect of that definition that gave me a little bit of pause was there is a phrase in there about “is intended to” and it’s not entirely clear what would constitute intent. So I think that was the main concern that we had about how do you ensure that that particular term is narrowly construed in a way that doesn’t allow for potential gaming by a manufacturer. Otherwise, it looked like the other elements of the definition seem to marry up fairly closely with what was proposed. MR. BROOKMAN: Seeing as how this is an aspect of consensus agreement, could you provide guidance to them on how that might be addressed, orExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 6 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 should they come back to you with some additional assurance? How might this be advanced? MR. KIDO: Well, I think I’d like to let the folks over at NRDC and the manufacturers, and ASAP and NPCC to use their creative thinking. I think there’s some options there. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. So now we’re going to proceed with Detlef. **Engineering Analysis** MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay. We were just launching into the engineering analysis part of the presentation here, and this slide here talks about the baseline energy use for the new test procedure; steps through the process used to establish what we call baseline energy use equations according to the new test procedure. This was initially explained in the preliminary TSD and is also repeated in the NOPR TSD. This was based on receipt of AHAM data that described for a number of different product classes, the percent change and energy use measurement and volume measurement for a number of product classes. This was modeled -- Kevin mentioned the modeling -- this was modeled in such a way that the energy use of the two test proceduresExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 6 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was assumed to be proportional, such that the energy use ratio could be applied to the current energy use measurement to determine an average new test procedure energy use measurement. We were kind of restrained to that interpretation by the form of the data. We didn’t have the data, we just had top level information. Likewise with the volume calculation adjustment factor, which adjusts the calculated adjusted volume from the current test procedure value to the new test procedure value. Then given these relationships between current and new energy use, and current and new volume measurement, the TSD goes through the algebra to determine how the new intercept and slope should be determined from the old intercept and slope. And so we get a new intercept value that is the ESAF times the old intercept value and the new slope value that is ESAF divided by VCAF times the old slope value. DOE also raised the slopes of the baseline energy use equations for three product classes. The intercepts were lowered to maintain equal average energy use. And this was done for product classes 4, 5, and 5A. For product class 4, DOE used theExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 6 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 energy use equation slope for product class 7 -- both products are side-by-sides, one has through the door ice. It’s not clear why having the through the door ice would impact the trend with size increase, so the product class 7 value, which is a side by side with through the door ice, was used for product class 4, which is a side by side without through the door ice. For product class 5, DOE obtained data for two pairs of products that differed just in size, and this data shows that the current slope is about half as much as it should be, and DOE chose the average of the slopes of product classes 3 and 7 for product class 5. The product class 3 and 7 slopes are fairly close, one of them was 10.7, the other was about 11.3, and a slope of 11 was used for product class 5. And then, the intercepts were reduced so that the average of all the energy use of a distribution of products would be the same. And DOE does not have information on distribution of products as with how many are in each size, so DOE instead used the point in the center of a reasonable range of product sizes, and DOE would welcome any data that would allow refinement of that selectionExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of the pivot point. So on the issue for public comment, slope adjustments for baseline energy use, these equations -- and I’m not going to read through all of this, but basically we request comment on the approach used for the adjustment of these slopes and also any data that would perhaps help us adjust this to more accurately reflect something that would provide a result which when changing the intercept, that might be equal -- the initial baseline energy use equation. MR. BROOKMAN: Please. MR. HALL: Dave Hall with Electrolux. On the previous slide, 29, where it’s saying the intercepts were lowered to maintain an equal average energy use, then you describe that some mean product size was used here. Does that mean that it is the average of 7.75 cubic feet and 30 cubic feet for all of these cases? Because that would be one method. And if not, what actual method was used for each class for determining its average? MR. WESTPHALEN: Well, we did this only for a few classes as mentioned, and you can see in the plot here for product class 4, we selected a small end of the range that represents the smallestExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 6 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 side by side product class 4 that you would expect to see on the market, and a large end of the range that would represent the largest. I believe that might have been 20 cubic foot on the small end, and 30 cubic foot on the large end. So we adjusted the intercept so that the equation was reduced at the small end by the same amount that it was increased at the high end. So that if you add up the energy use of all of those products, if there’s an equal distribution from the 20 cubic foot to the 30 cubic foot, you get the same number before and after the adjustment of intercept slope. Did you follow that? MR. HALL: I do, I just question that it seems more of an aggregate approach to an entire category, summing and that sort, rather than taking a specific volume at a low end and mean, lack of a distribution of a current market for a current class, say 5A, taking whatever is currently in the market, for example, and doing the distribution based on what the market is, versus 7.75 to 30 cubic foot. Because I’ve heard two different volumes for one particular class, and I’m not sure it’s based on the real market for that class. And at the same time, doing that, is it confirmed -- has it been confirmed that by doing this certain products on theExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 6 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 market will not be penalized by the averaging method used? MR. WESTPHALEN: I think you have multiple questions there. In response to the question about whether some products may or may not be penalized, I think because of the variation inherent in how the current products respond to the compartment temperature changes, some products will benefit and not increase energy use as much with the compartment temperature changes as others. Some products will have more increase associated with the compartment temperature changes, and they will have more difficulty getting down to the new standard. This is an issue that has been inherent in this process from the start. As mentioned before, the data that we received from AHAM was top level. If we had the individual data points, we could have determined the slope, because we would have had the information on this product has this volume has this energy use and this increase with the new test procedure. And this, at a larger volume has this increase. But we didn’t have that individual data, so we couldn’t do that. And we would welcome that data. We asked for it a long time ago.Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments. Kevin? MR. MESSNER: That was actually the same question I had, but just so I’m clear, looking at that curve, essentially what you’re saying is the area under -- on each side of that where they pivot, the area under each of those sides are equivalent. MR. WESTPHALEN: Right, that’s the intent. MR. MESSNER: So depending on how far down you go lower, that was your intent to turn it around too? MR. WESTPHALEN: Right, and the other issue is, this assumes equal distribution from small to large. We don’t know what the distribution really is. We presume that that’s a fair way to do this adjustment, to say shipment weighted average energy use remains the same. MR. MESSNER: That’s not a shipment weight average, that’s just a strict average that you’re saying. MR. WESTPHALEN: Because we don’t have the input. MR. MESSNER: Okay. I understand. MR. BROOKMAN: So you see it’s a rather detailed comment box there, take a peek at it, see if there are additional comments that you would likeExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 7 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to make at this juncture. Nothing additional? Okay. MR. WESTPHALEN: So the next two slides reiterate the modifications made in the engineering analysis. This table was provided in a NOPR. I’m not going to go through all of these details. It’s in the NOPR, it’s here in the handout. Based on the comments made during the preliminary analysis phase and additional information obtained during the NOPR phase, many changes were made to the analyses, and this kind of gives a blow by blow of all of those changes. If you have any questions about particular changes feel free. And I believe there is an error on the second of these two pages, the variable defrost compressor run time between defrosts, for the NOPR analysis, it say 30 hours, but I think we actually used 24 hours. I need to confirm that and we can correct that. MR. BROOKMAN: Since they have the tables, you can proceed to the comment box. MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay. So the issue for public comment here is on treatment of design options and the engineering analysis, DOE requestsExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 7 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 comment on its treatment of design options in the NOPR phase analyses. MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s just pause for a moment, give you a chance to look. MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. I’m looking especially at the industry reps here. Okay. Proceed. MR. WESTPHALEN: We have an additional issue for public comment. As described in the NOPR and also the TSD, the engineering analysis was based heavily on energy use modeling using the ERA program, and DOE requests comments, information and/or data that would permit the adjustment of energy modeling inputs in our results that would allow more accurate representation of the energy use impacts of the design options using the ERA energy model. The model was placed on the DOE website some time this spring, I forget the exact date, so it’s available for review. MR. BROOKMAN: I don’t see any -- we’re just seeking general comments on the modeling effort. Comments? MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay. So this is whereExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 7 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 my part of the presentation transitions. I think I may have a role later on. MR. BROOKMAN: Jeff Greenblatt. **Markups, Energy Use, Life Cycle Cost, Shipments, National Impact Analyses**  DR. GREENBLATT: Hello everyone. My name is Jeffery Greenblatt with Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. I’ll be talking about several subsequent steps in the analysis, starting with markups, and going through to the national impact analysis, I believe. We’re not going to be covering all of these steps in detail, but again, only the ones for which DOE specifically requested comment. **Markups** The first topic I wanted to discuss was the issue of markups. DOE did receive some comments on the use of incremental markups in the analysis for determining the final consumer price. Just as a quick background, all of you probably know this, and it’s been like this since the preliminary analysis. Several markups are applied to the initial manufacture cost in order to determine the final cost that the consumers see according to a supply model which is pretty simple. It goes fromExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 7 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 manufacturer to retailer to consumer. The issue was over the appropriateness of the use of incremental markups for the retailer, and after careful consideration of the data that DOE had, it was determined that an incremental markup approach is still appropriate. Essentially, the argument being that not all of the costs increase proportionately when an increase in efficiency is incurred for a product. Most of the cost of maintaining a retail outlet don’t change, perhaps except some costs associated with increased advertising and so on, and this has been described in detail in the TSD. The DOE did examine the number that had been used in the preliminary analysis and updated it using slightly newer US census data, so the new incremental markup is 1.17, but DOE feels that the incremental markup approach is still appropriate. So DOE requests information regarding the likely retail responses to an incremental change in efficiency and whether this would be correctly reflected in the approach that DOE chose. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. DR. GREENBLATT: Shall I go on, Doug? MR. BROOKMAN: I don’t see any response,Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 7 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 so yes, keep going. **Energy Use** DR. GREENBLATT: The next topic I’ll cover is Energy Use, and energy use load characteristic. So there are a few topics here. I’ll discuss these adjustment factors in a moment, but first a couple of things to mention. In response to some comments from stakeholders, DOE decided that there was a way to distinguish top and bottom mount products in the distribution of data provided by the residential energy consumption survey, or RECS, which DOE uses heavily to determine distributions of energy use and other characteristics for a number of home appliances. Because of data that was provided to DOE from AHAM, which examined the relationship between household income and the type of standard size refrigerator-freezers that were owned, DOE determined that we could essentially scale the RECS data which -- RECS doesn’t distinguish between top and bottom mount freezer-refrigerators, so they’re all just one big pool. But there is a strong relationship between income and the ownership of bottom mounts. So more people who are wealthy own bottom mounts as opposed to top mounts. So what DOE decided to do was weight moreExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 7 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 heavily households that had higher income when we produced the bottom mount refrigerator distributions as opposed to top mounts, who were weighted much more heavily in the other direction, and this allowed us to obtain two samples that were not the same when producing our distributions of ownership for these two product classes. So this only applied to product classes 3 and 5. Similarly, since built-in products were not initially part of the preliminary analysis, and is not indicated at all in the RECS data, built-in versus regular refrigerator, because of the income relationship with ownership of built-ins, DOE was able to determine a distribution for built-in product ownership that was more heavily weighted for higher income users. So, for instance, things like probability of having a large size refrigerator, or the probability of having a side by side that’s also a built in, could be reflected, at least approximately, through this method based on income. So DOE used this AHAM relationship for determining the built-in household distributions. Finally, and the reason I’m mentioning all these together is there’s only one issue box here that sort of summarizes them. DOE also noticed thatExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 7 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the raw volumes from RECS did not -- for product classes 5 and 7 -- did not seem to reflect accurately, at least from sales data from NPD Group, it seemed to be biased low by between 16 and 18 percent, compared to NPD Group, which has sales data from 2007 and 2008. And because we use RECS data which is from 2005, as a forward-looking prediction for where the market may be in 2014, DOE decided it would be better to scale up the average volume for these two product classes in order to reflect where the market was in 2007, 2008, which of course reflects just new models. And so we used -- we essentially just scaled up the volumes for all of the units coming out of the RECS Monte Carlo stimulation by these amounts. MR. BROOKMAN: You see the comment box there. Subid? MR. WAGLEY: I would just like to reiterate that we’re not saying it is true, but just for the analysis purposes and coming up with the results, this is the methodology that we used, so we’re just asking for comments whether this is a true representation of the analysis or not. MR. ECKMANN: Tom Eckmann, I think that’s a reasonable approach, given what clearly is anExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 income-related event here, purchase of a more expensive refrigerator is certainly connected to income. MR. WAGLEY: And when you come to the income and the demographics and all that, and all kinds of issues and theories thrown at it, so we just wanted to make sure that the approach and the methodology that we used is somewhat -- makes sense to come to a result. MR. ECKMANN: There’s a statistical connection. Pretty much. I don’t know what the correlation is, but probably is reasonably above point five. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks, Tom. Jennifer? MS. CLEARY: I think AHAM would continue to oppose the use of the RECS data for determining energy use as we consistently have and urge using the test procedure as a better approach. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Other comments on this series of issues related to scaling? Okay. DR. GREENBLATT: Then the next comment, which may be Jennifer’s comment more particularly would address the usage adjustment factors for determining the energy use of refrigerators andExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 7 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 freezers in the field. There was considerable stakeholder feedback in the use of RECS data that included an estimate of energy use by household. And in response to that, DOE developed a new approach based on field meter data. After basically looking in whatever sources were available for field metered studies that have been done in prior years, we were able to obtain high quality data from seven different metered studies between 1994 -- the metering dates between 1994 and 2004, a total of over 1500 data points, also representing a number of geographic areas in the west, northeast, and the Midwest. And used this data to perform statistical analyses from which new usage adjustment factors were obtained for standard size products, that is standard sized refrigerators and standard sized freezers. Once we obtained these UAF functions, they were then applied to the RECS household variables, so just to be clear, we’re not using the RECS energy use any more, but we’re using household variables to drive this UAF function, which is then multiplied by the test energy consumption associated with each of those RECS household refrigerators or freezers, to come up with a field energy consumption projection.Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The variables that we used from RECS included heating and cooling degree days [which is a] reflection of geographic location, the location within the home, the number of occupants and the unit age. This table shows the change in the mean UAF from the preliminary analysis, and you can see that in each case the mean UAF has decreased, in some cases significantly. Also just emphasize that there is a function of age for standard size refrigerators, and so what’s shown here is both the average value for the entire sample in year one as opposed to year 20, and then also the average over the lifetime. In addition, there’s slightly different UAF values given for the built-in product classes because, as was described earlier, the household distribution is slightly different. So DOE requests comments on its approach for developing these UAFs to determine field energy consumption. MR. BROOKMAN: Tom Eckmann. MR. ECKMANN: Well, since we asked you to go get some metered data, I can’t say anything but, very good job. MR. BROOKMAN: As I look at this chart, IExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 8 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 think it’s a really good chart. I like this chart. It’s clear, complete. I like it. Kevin. MR. MESSNER: I just had one question on the RECS households. DR. GREENBLATT: Yes. MR. MESSNER: Mine’s a little fuzzy memory, is that -- what were those households? Is that where you guys went into college dorms? DR. GREENBLATT: Oh, no, not college dorms. No. The RECS households are the -- around 4000, statistically sampled households from across the country. MR. MESSNER: Okay. DR. GREENBLATT: Yeah, to be clear, we examined data from a number of sources and also excluded about 500 data points from our initial sample in order to produce what we see. So the college dorm -- actually, it wasn’t college dorms, it was hotels -- and that was excluded. We felt the sample wasn’t sufficiently representative to use. MR. MESSNER: Okay. Thanks. MR. BROOKMAN: So let’s move to the comment box. DR. GREENBLATT: Okay. DOE requests comments on its approach to the developing UAFsExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 8 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 using field metered data. We’ve already received one comment. Additional comments? MR. BROOKMAN: No additional comments. **Life Cycle Cost** DR. GREENBLATT: Thank you. Within the section of the NOPR analysis dealing with life cycle cost and payback period analysis, there is one change that we wanted to highlight and request comment on. This is a flow diagram showing all the steps that are used in producing life cycle cost and payback periods. Based on stakeholder feedback, DOE made a change to the estimate of the repair cost, which if you recall from the preliminary analysis, it was assumed that there was no incremental change in repair cost. DOE has since obtained data from a number of sources in order to estimate component by component, the repair rates and incremental costs, so the results -- I’m just going to skip all this -- if people have questions, you’re of course, free to comment, but the results are that we now have estimates for the baseline annual repair cost which vary from product class from about $1.43 to $22 per year, but that doesn’t change with efficiency level. What’s important is the incremental repair cost,Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 8 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 [which] varies with product class from about 67 cents to about $2.58 per year, and this has now been included in the life cycle cost analysis. DOE requests comment on the approach used for estimating these repair costs. MR. ECKMANN: Tom Eckmann. So how was the data, I guess, manipulated, to get at the incremental repair cost, given that maybe you’re looking at -- are these high efficiency equipment repair costs? DR. GREENBLATT: Yes, first I would emphasize the numbers -- sorry, I wasn’t clear or I didn’t clarify this. The numbers I’m showing here for incremental repair costs, that’s at the max tech level that we analyzed it, so they would be lower at the proposed standard level. MR. ECKMANN: So these are scaled with the level? DR. GREENBLATT: Yes, so we have a chart that actually shows as a function of efficiency level for each product class what the incremental repair costs would be. MR. ECKMANN: And those are extrapolated from max tech? DR. GREENBLATT: It’s based -- so it’s notExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 8 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 an extrapolated -- MR. ECKMANN: The slide said max tech is not available for most of these product classes, so I wondered how you got there. DR. GREENBLATT: All of the cost data -- so I can explain in one more level of detail without getting into the nitty-gritty, unless people want me to. We used the incremental component cost from the engineering analysis in order to obtain these repair costs. Essentially it’s a product of a probability of a repair being needed, times the cost of that component being replaced, plus the markup, of course. So yes, it is theoretical in the sense that there may not be a product that has all of these components present in the same product, but it is based on existing products, as I understand it from the engineering analysis, at least at the component level, such as the presence of a variable speed compressor, we’re looking at the incremental cost of that compressor being replaced, times the probability of it breaking. MR. ECKMANN: I’ll read it. DR. GREENBLATT: Okay. MR. BROOKMAN: So Jeffery, explain the approach comments on repair cost estimates.Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 8 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DR. GREENBLATT: Okay. So the next topic is base and standard case efficiency distributions. Base case distributions are used to project market shares of higher efficiency products in the absence of standards, so recognizing that not all consumers purchase products that have the base efficiency level, but there’s a fraction that purchase at Energy Star or other levels in between, or beyond Energy Star. These base case efficiency distributions were determined using 2007 and 2008 data supplied by AHAM. The main change is that now that we had 2008 data, there was a change in the Energy Starlevel for 2008 for standard size refrigeratorfreezers and this was taken into account, allowing Energy Star. So for 2008, the Energy Star market share, understandably, was lower than what it was in 2007, and we allowed the Energy Star market shares in future years to slowly return to the pre-2008 level, following the data that we had by product class. The main reason for us doing this had to do with a stakeholder comment concerning the very high market share of Energy Star for product class 5 which are the bottom mount freezers, and so that hasExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 8 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 been revised. It’s now lower because in 2008 it was significantly lower, but still quite a bit above the 25 percent, which is typically assumed to be the target for Energy Star, so it’s very product class specific. Also for predicting Energy Star levels in terms of where the Energy Star level would be set, this used a five year payback period criterion that Energy Star -- conversations with people at Energy Star said is used in determining where to set that level. And then for the standards case efficiency distribution, which is again -- now we assume that there is a new standard and where -- what would be the distribution of actual purchases by consumers under that standard, we applied the roll-up approach used in the preliminary analysis, but also assigned Energy Star -- future Energy Star levels using the same five year payback criterion, and noted that because of the cost efficiency curve, the Energy Star level vanishes for efficiency levels higher than 15 percent above the current baseline. In other words, that there was no five year -- there was no level at which the payback period was five years or less in all cases.Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 8 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So DOE requests comment on both the base case efficiency use distribution approach, and in forecasting the base and standard cases efficiency levels, the approach used for forward forecasting. MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on these subjects? Okay, no additional comments. **Utility and Environmental Impacts, Employment Impact, and Regulatory Impact Analysis**  DR. GREENBLATT: Now moving on to the NOPR analysis, there are a number of steps, most of which DOE has no specific requests for comment, but there is a request for comment under environmental impact analysis. The emissions baseline -- MR. BROOKMAN: Would you pause right there just for a moment. DR. GREENBLATT: Yes. MR. BROOKMAN: So go back to the slide 47. No specific requests for comments on those analyses listed, however there is an opportunity to do so should anybody wish to make a comment before we move on. Life cycle cost subgroup, trial standard levels, manufacturer impact analysis, employment impact analysis, regulatory impact analysis. MR. WAGLEY: This is Subid Wagley. As I described, these are the factors for the analysisExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 8 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 required to measure the factors by EPCA. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. **Environmental Impacts** DR. GREENBLATT: Yes, so moving on to the environment impact analysis. DOE had a request for comment about one specific part of the regulatory emissions reductions calculations. The emissions baseline is based on the latest Annual Energy Outlook forecast, and we -- DOE actually uses the same code NEMS, modified slightly because we’relooking at a different scenario, so we call that BTNEMS, in order to calculate the emissions reductions under the standard. For NOx in particular, it accounts for regulatory emissions reductions through 2008, including the CAIR rule, but not CAMR, which is the mercury rule. Because CAIR only applies to 28 states which essentially is setting a cap, so if there was a decrease in say, consumption, because of the efficiency standard, because there exists a cap in these states, people could essentially buy and sell permits and the overall amount of NOx would not change. However for the 22 states that do not participate in CAIR, the BT-NEMS calculate that there would be a reduction in NOx, which is why weExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 calculate one in our analysis. DOE requests comments on its baseline treatment of this emissions reduction, specifically for NOx. MR. BROOKMAN: Comments on NOx? No comments. Okay. **Proposed Standard Levels** DR. GREENBLATT: Okay. We’re actually at the proposed standard levels, so I think we were going to do this together, Detlef and I, but -- do you want to stand up here? It may not be necessary, but -- MR. WESTPHALEN: There’s not much here that you can’t say. DR. GREENBLATT: Probably, but it was listed to share, but you can hover. MR. WESTPHALEN: I can jump in. DR. GREENBLATT: All right. So the proposed standards, as you know, are presented as functions of adjusted volume on the pages listed of the NOPR. There is a correction for product class 5A-BI. Yes, you wanted to interject a clarification? MR. WESTPHALEN: The decimal point was in the wrong place for 5A-BIExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BROOKMAN: That’s good to know. DR. GREENBLATT: Yes, it could make a difference. PARTICIPANT: It would have been obvious, I hope. DR. GREENBLATT: At very high level -- MR. BROOKMAN: So for the record, Detlef adds that there was -- the correction is that there was a decimal point in the wrong spot, so DOE has corrected that. Proceed. DR. GREENBLATT: Rather than go into all 35 product classes or whatever, we thought we would just present a high level summary here. All the TSLs for individual -- sorry, all the trial standard levels for individual product classes are, of course, listed in the NOPR, and the TSD. The proposed standard level, which is essentially a basket of these various actual efficiency levels grouped by product -- similar product classes, is shown here. The national energy savings and net present value calculations and impact on industry net present value are all summarized here. The one thing -- I mean, I’ll pause here and ask if stakeholders have any specific comments on the proposed levels chosen, emphasizing thatExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 9 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 these do mirror what were in the joint comments. MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Joanna. MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. I think there’s just one small discrepancy for one of the product classes between the level in the consensus agreement and the proposed level, so it’s -- in the consensus agreement for product classes 13 and 15, which are the compact top and bottom mounts, we agreed to the same equation for both product classes, even though currently those product classes do not have the same standard level. And there may have been an oversight on our part, I think we presented the same equations, but I think in kind of a summary table where we had the percentage reductions of energy use, I think we may have listed those two categories together with a 15 percent reduction energy use, so that may have been an oversight on our part, that it actually should have been a slightly different percentage reduction, so that the final equations for those two product classes were the same. DR. GREENBLATT: So does that mean you all need to submit some additional information to the Department? MS. MAUER: We can certainly clarify in our written comments.Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 9 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MESSNER: Well, the chart shows -- it says 13/15, basically merged the two. So 15 is using 13, so you can either say 13/15 using product class 13 equation, or you can keep them as 13/15 and use -- it’s product class 15 is using product class 13’s equation. DR. GREENBLATT: Equations. So if I can - - this is Jeff Greenblatt -- so if I can just ask for a clarification there. So the percentage reduction from the baseline, then, for these two product classes are not going to be the same. It’s the equation is the same but there’ll actually be a sort of -- MR. MESSNER: Right, the cons of how we were presenting agreement is we were merging 15 into 13, so that product class has that percent increase, but 15 is merged into there, so it might be -- you’re right, it’ll be like 16 percent, or something like that. DR. GREENBLATT: I understand. MR. WESTPHALEN: So the product class 13 should have the 15 percent reduction, and then the product class 15 should have the same energy use as product class 13? MR. MESSNER: Exactly.Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 9 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BROOKMAN: Good. So we got all that on the record. That’s sufficient? Okay. DR. GREENBLATT: Good. DOE did request comment on the proposed levels for built-ins, and really the reason why is as you can see from this chart, built-in products have a negative net present value, both the 3 and the 7 percent discount rates, which is typically not chosen, however, given that there were some other factors to consider, DOE did go with these levels, again, mirroring what the joint agreement had recommended. And if I can say summarily, it’s a small percentage of the market. These are very -- the impact on industry in percentage terms is smaller than for any of the other product classes here, and for the consumers who would choose to purchase these products, even though it is a negative NPV, it’s a very small percentage, I believe it’s less than two percent of the cost of a new model, which is obviously much smaller than for the other products, because of the high price of these units. And so for all these reasons, DOE felt that this higher recommended level was justified. But DOE requests comments on its consideration leading to the proposed standards forExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 9 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 built-in refrigeration units. MR. BROOKMAN: Kevin. MR. MESSNER: It mirrors the agreement, and we’re pleased to support it. DR. GREENBLATT: Okay. Thank you. I think I’m now going to turn things over to Detlef. MR. WESTPHALEN: One thing that is being considered for the test procedure rule is to require round off of energy use measurements to the nearest kilowatt hour per year. And so this is also being proposed for the standard, and essentially to avoid issues where you round off the measurement and you’re point two kilowatt hours over the standard, and so DOE requests comment on the proposal for round off of energy standard. MR. BROOKMAN: Kevin. MR. MESSNER: We would support the rounding. MR. BROOKMAN: I think IRS did this in the past, right? Next topic, Jeff Kingman will address. **Regulatory Flexibility Act Considerations** MR. KINGMAN: Jeff Kingman with Navigant Consulting. And this is the last specific comment that DOE is requesting. DOE is required to consider the impact on small business manufacturers if it canExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 9 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 certify that any proposed rule won’t have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and DOE only identified one small business manufacturer, and so it didn’t complete this full analysis. So we just request comment on that determination. MR. BROOKMAN: Impact on small businesses, small manufacturers. Any comment? MR. KINGMAN: I don’t see any here today. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. No additional comment on that. Let’s advance to the last slide. **Conclusions and Closing Remarks** MR. BROOKMAN: There is another opportunity for additional issues to be raised, summary remarks, things you don’t feel have been addressed sufficiently during the course of this public hearing today. So we’ll hear those now. Subid, yes. MR. WAGLEY: Subid Wagley. I would also like to provide an opportunity for those who are on webinar, see if there are any clarifying questions that you would like to ask. MR. BROOKMAN: Great, and so those can come in while we’re receiving these final comments here in the room.Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 9 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Closing remarks? Final comments? Tom Eckmann. MR. ECKMANN: I’d like to express my appreciation to DOE and the consultant staff that helped in the negotiations. The value added was material in that process, so I want to express our gratitude for their participation. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Kevin. MR. MESSNER: I’ll chime in and support that, it was very helpful during the whole to have them there during the process to bounce ideas off of and having their unbiased opinion. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Good. We didn’t give them much time, those that are joining in the webinar, see if any questions come in here. No. Okay. So then for my part, I’ll turn it back to Subid. Thank you. This was a very, very constructive meeting, a lot of very focused, beneficial exchange, good questions, good comments, good back and forth, so thanks to all of you and Subid. MR. WAGLEY: Yes, and again, on behalf of, you know, the team who put this together and all of us here with the support team, we’d like to thank you for coming on board. I was really hoping to goExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 9 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to the whole day meeting, but happy to say that we’re able to understand each other with the issues that were raised, and be able to explain. So we look forward to receiving comments. It is open and we have our notes, so we will be making corrections to the PowerPoint slides, errors and things like that, so if you see anything in the next few days, feel free to let us know. And again, thank you. MR. BROOKMAN: Safe travels. (Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the hearing in the above captioned matter was adjourned.)Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 9 8 1 REPORTER'S CE RTIFICATE

This is to certify that the attached proceedings before: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY In the Matter of: **ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS: ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR REFRIGERATORS,**  **REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS** Were held as herein appe ars and that this is the original transcript ther eof for the file of the Department, Commiss ion, Board, Admi nistrative Law Judge or the Agency. Further, I am neither counsel for or related to any party to the ab ove proceedings.



### Wendy Greene Official Reporter Dated: October 15, 2010